JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Ms Bharati Sapru Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2, Sri Neeraj Sharma Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 3 and Sri Amit Kumar Singh Advocate on behalf of respondent No. 4.
2. Govind Nagar Sugar Limited Walterganj, district Basti is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The said company has established an Industrial Unit for manufacturing sugar through vacuum process at Walterganj, district Basti. Similarly respondent No. 3, Balrampur Chini Mill Limited, has also established an Industrial Unit for manufacturing sugar through vacuum process at Babhnan district Gonda.
3. The dispute giving rise to the present writ petition pertains to the following sugarcane purchase centers, namely (i) Chandra Deep Ghat Bankati, (ii) Barhni Chafa (A), (iii) Barhni Chafa (B) and (iv) Puraina Bhawaniganj.
4. On behalf of the petitioner it is stated, that before the Cane Commissioner the petitioner had submitted a proposal stating their requirement for the crushing season 2004-05 and the petitioner had made a demand in respect of all the disputed sugarcane centers. The aforesaid sugarcane centers had been reserved/assigned to the petitioner sugar factory for the last so many years. The Cane Commissioner without considering the aforesaid demand of the petitioner vide his reservation order dated 23.11.2004 assigned the aforesaid four sugarcane centers in favour of respondent No. 3 sugar factory. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner filed four appeals before the respondent No. 1 - one each in respect of each sugar center. The appeals so filed were numbered as Appeal Nos. 5(36), 5(37), 5(38) and 5(39). All the appeals were clubbed together and have been decided by the State Government by means of common order dated 03.01.2005. It is against the order passed by the State Government dated 03.01.2005 that the present writ petition has been filed.
5. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the Cane Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the bridge over river Kuwano had been constructed more that six years ago and the aforesaid sugarcane centers continued to be the reserved/assigned, areas of the petitioner sugar factory even thereafter as the approach road to the said bridge, which is about 6 kilometers, is in a very bad shape and the trucks loaded with sugar cane are necessarily required to pass through the gate of petitioner sugar factory for the purpose of reaching Balrampur Chini Mill and, therefore, the construction of bridge could not have been the ground for grant of the said sugarcane centers to the respondent sugar factory. It is further submitted that the State Government has failed to take into consideration the proposal of Cane Cooperative Society which was in favour of the petitioner viz a viz respondent No. 3 sugar factory and consequently the finding recorded to the contrary in the impugned order cannot be legally sustained. It is further submitted that the appellate authority has illegally stated that the requirement of Balrampur Chini Mill was 153 lac quintals of sugarcane while from the reservation order of the Cane Commissioner it is apparently clear that the requirement of Balrampur Chini Mill, respondent No. 3, was only 136 lac quintals of sugarcane. Similarly it has been pointed out that utilization of the crushing capacity by the Balrampur Chini Mill was 34% only. The Cane Commissioner has recommended that the sugar factories should increase their drawal percentage upto 55-60%. With the increased drawal percentage the petitioner would have a shortage of 15.58 lac quintals of sugarcane while the Balrampur Chini Mill, respondent No. 3 , would have a shortage of 5.92 lac quintals of sugarcane. Lastly it is submitted that the Ballrampur Chini Mill cannot be given benefit of its low drawal percentage.
6. Counsel for the respondent No. 3, Sugar Factory, however, referred to the earlier order passed by the State Government dated 09.04.1999 whereby Chandra Deep Ghat was allotted in favour of respondent No. 3, sugar factory, as well as subsequent orders passed in that regard for the purposes of challenging the correctness of the contentions raised by the petitioner.
7. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the writ petition. From the reply so tendered it is apparently clear that the respondent No. 3 has not been able to dispute the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner to the effect that approach road to the bridge of river Kuwano is marshy for about 6 kilometers and, therefore, the trucks loaded with sugarcane from the sugarcane centers in dispute have to pass through the Mill Gate of the petitioner sugar factory for reaching to the respondent No. 3 sugar factory. It is thus clear that the finding recorded by the Cane Commissioner that because of construction of bridge over river Kuwano the route from the sugarcane centers in dispute to the respondent No. 3 sugar factory has become shorter, is legally not sustainable.
8. Similarly the findings recorded in respect of capacity and requirement of the respondent No. 3 sugar factory in the order of the State Government are contrary to the figures so determined by the Cane Commissioner. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the order passed by the State Government is based on misreading of facts as available on record.
9. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the State Government dated 03.01.2005, annexure-1 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the State Government to reconsider all the appeals filed by the petitioner afresh within six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the respondent No. 1.