Back
[2010(3) ADJ 628 (LB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : DEVI PRASAD SINGH, J.
SIMBHOLI SUGARS LTD. .....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 581, 664 of 2010, decided on 1st April, 2010)
(B) U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953—Sections 15(2), 17 and 18—U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954—Rule 22—Cane purchase centres—Assignment or allocation—In favour of 'P' Sugar Mill by Cane Commissioner—In exercise of his powers under Section 15(2), considering requirements of Rule 22—By withdrawing those purchase centres which were earlier reserved in favour of adjoining 'R' Sugar Mill—On grounds of non-payment of cane purchase price to cane growers and farmers, non-payment of huge amount of outstanding dues of development commission and reduction in production of cane—Considering provisions of Rule 22 and Sections 17 and 18—Payment of cane growers and farmers—Cannot be withheld—Statutory requirements cannot be permitted to be violated—Conduct of 'R' Sugar Mill by non-payment of purchase price of sugar cane to farmers and cane growers—Found arbitrary and violative of law—Order of Cane commissioner—As such, fulfils requirement of law. [Paras 3, 4, 7, 38, 39, 41 and 64]
(C) U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953—Sections 15(4), 15(2), 17 and 18—U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954—Rules 23, 22 and 21—Constitution of India—Articles 226 and 21—Appeal under Seciton 15(4) read with Rule 23—File before State Government,against order of assignment or allocation of purchase centres in favour of 'P' sugar mill, by withdrawing those purchase centres, earlier assigned or allotted to 'R' Sugar mill—Impugned order found to have been passed in accordance with statutory provisions—Reversal of that order by appellate authority—Ignoring legal aspects—Illegal—High Court can quash appellate order in exercise of its writ jurisdiction—In fact Rule 22 is part and partial of Articles 21—Non-consideration of requirements of Rule 22—Amounts to violation of Article 21—Cases decided without considering this important aspect—Are 'per-incurrium'—Several other relevant features of matter—Elaborated. [Paras 23 to 27, 43, 51 to 57, 64, 66 to 70, 78 and 81]
(D) Interpretation of Statutes—Principle of "Causus Omisus"—Applicability—While interpreting statutory provision, language of that provision, intention of Legislature and principle of "Causus omisus" be kept in mind by Courts—But Principle of "Causes Omisus" should not be applied when language of provision is clear and unambiguous. [Para 42]
(E) Precedent—Concept of "per-in curium", Clarifies that while laying down a principle of law, certain relevant features has been not considered—Entire legal concept—Discussed. [Paras 58 to 62]
(F) High Court's Observations—Relating to payment purchase price to cane of Cane growers and farmers—Non-payment thereof causes serious adverse consequences and affect their fundamental right also, apart from creating undue heardship—High Court directed State Government to take appropriate step to ensure such payment by constituting statutory monitoring committee or Tribunal. [Paras 67, 71, 76, 77 and 79 to 81]
Hon’ble Devi Prasad Singh, J.—It has been admitted at bar that except different cane purchase centres, the factory as well as the question of law and fact in both these writ petitions are same hence, are decided by the common judgment. The Writ Petition No. 581 (M/S) of 2010 is taken as leading petition.
2. The petitioner, Simbholi Sugars Ltd., (Unit Brajnathpur), District Ghaziabad, a Company incorporated and registered under the Companies Act, 1956, is engaged in manufacture of white crystal sugar through vacuum pan process at Brajnathpur, District Ghaziabad having crushing capacity of 4000 TCD. It has been alleged that the actual cane requirement of the petitioner Sugar Mill is 72 lakh quintal. The respondent No. 4 is also a sugar mill situated at village Bhandoria, District Bulandshahr. The working area of both, the petitioner Sugar Mill and the respondent No. 4 Sugar Mill, seems to overlap the area and the cane purchase centres allotted to them, have been the question for controversy from time to time.
3. The present controversy relates to 8 cane purchase centres namely, Sherpur, Partapur, Khangawali, Saidpur, Kisola-I, Kisola-II, Hazipur-I and Hazipur-II. All these cane purchase centres have been the reserved area of respondent No. 4 which was assigned to the petitioner by the order dated 2.11.2009, copy of which is contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition, passed by the Cane Commissioner in pursuance of the power conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (in short the Act). While passing the order dated 2.11.2009, the Cane Commissioner observed that the petitioner Sugar Mill had earlier started crushing work from 8.11.2008 and continued upto 29.3.2009, thus, worked for 142 days and crushed 35.01 lakh quintal sugar cane. The Cane Commissioner noted 28% reduction of sugar and keeping in view the capacity of petitioner’s sugar, observed that 51.61 lakh quintal sugarcane may be allotted and for that purpose, 9421 hectare of cane crop shall be necessary. After hearing the representatives of the petitioner’s Sugar Mill and the Cane Cooperative Society, the Cane Commissioner considered the petitioner’s demand in pursuance of Rule 22 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 (in short the Rules), and assigned all these centres in question to the petitioner’s Sugar Mill.
4. While considering the case of the respondent No. 4, the Cane Commissioner observed that total necessity of sugarcane for respondent No. 4 Sugar Mill, would be 40.43 lakh quintal sugarcane. It was further observed that in the previous session of 2008-2009, the respondent No. 4 started crushing work from 24.11.2008 and continued upto 4.3.2009. Thus, the respondent No. 4 worked for 100 days and out of 65.90 lakh quintal sugarcane production, approximately after drawl almost 34%, 22.17 lakh quintal sugarcane was crushed. The Cane Commissioner further observed that the respondent No. 4 had not paid cane purchase price to the farmers in the session 2009 to the tune of Rs. 185.19 lakh and also outstanding dues of Rs. 48.42 lakh with regard to development commission. Notices were issued for recovery of Rs. 257.57 lakh. It was also observed by the Cane Commissioner that cane price of the session 2002-2003 to the tune of Rs. 542.30 lakh and development commission of session of 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 to the tune of Rs. 73.89 lakh and Rs. 87.65 lakh remained unpaid. The production of cane was reduced to the tune of 33%. Accordingly, the Cane Commissioner assessed for supply of sugarcane to the tune of 23.22 lakh quintal. Under these compelling conditions, the Cane Commissioner had allocated the disputed cane purchase centres to the petitioner’s Sugar Mill.
5. The order passed by the Cane Commissioner, has been reversed by the State Government in its appellate jurisdiction in pursuance of provisions contained in sub-section 4 of Section 15 of the Act read with Rul
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
