Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2201 of 2019
Petitioner :- Harveer Singh And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagdev Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard Sri Jagdev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 3.
The petitioners in the writ petition are seeking quashing of the order dated 26.10.2018 which is the reservation order passed by the Cane Commissioner, U.P..The petitioners are stated to be members of the Cooperative Cane Development Union Ltd., Chandpur, Bijnor-Respondent no.4.
Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel who appears for the Respondent no.4 has raised a preliminary objection that writ petition at the behest of an individual farmer/cane grower is not maintainable and that the cause of the farmers can be espoused only through the Society of which they are members. Reference has been made to a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 20.12.2018 passed in Writ petition no.42733 of 2018 (Avnesh Kumar And others Vs State of U.P. and others) which in turn has referred to another order passed by another Division Bench dated 1.12.2016 passed in Writ petition no. 56857 of 2016. The order passed in Writ petition no. 56857 of 2016 being short is reproduced in its entirety:-
"Ram Bahor Chaudhary, petitioner who is sugar cane grower is before this Court, assailing the validity of the order dated 11.11.2016 passed by Cane Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow in respect of purchased Centre Shivaghat & Ram Nagar reserved/assigned in exercise of authority conferred under Section 15 of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act 1953.
On the matter being taken up today, both Sri Ditiman Singh, Advocate representing respondent nos. 5 and 6, as well as Sri Ravindra Singh, who represents Cane Cooperative Societies Union before this Court, raised preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of the writ petition before this Court on the premises that once the accepted position is that the petitioner in individual capacity, is before this Court,then he has got no right/locus to assail the validity of proceeding in question right has been conferred to assail the validity of the same to the Cane Cooperative Society Union and in view of this the writ petition filed by individual cane grower is not maintainable before this Court and is liable to be dismissed.
The issue that is being raised before us is no more res integra, inasmuch as this Court has already answered the issue raised in series of decisions taking the view that individual cane grower cannot approach this Court by filing writ petition and his grievance cannot be permitted to be entertained.
We find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the respondent.
All the relevant provisions have been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satnaam Vs. Vs. State of U.P. through Secy. and 8 others [Writ Petition C No. 2075 of 2014] and after considering the Division Bench decision of this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.1081 of 2013 (Dharam Veer Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. thru. Secy. and others) and the order dated 24.02.2012 passed in Writ-C No.10207 of 2012, Rakesh Chand Gangwar Vs. Cane Commissioner, Lucknow and Ors., this Court has held as follows:
"We are of the view that the petitioner even if he is representing some more farmers at village Undra does not have a right to maintain the writ petition as the Cane Commissioner or the State Government is not obliged to issue notice to all the farmers to ascertain their views. In order to pass orders for establishing Cane Centres, the Cane Commissioner is to consider the interest of majority of cane growers of the concerned Cane Cooperative Societies, and it is the Cane Cooperative Society, which may be treated to be aggrieved as it is representing all the sugarcane growers attached to the purchase centres set up by such society, to espouse the cause of its member cane growers before the Cane Commissioner, State Government or in the High Court."
In view of the above, we decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. "
It is not in dispute that the petitioners are members of the Respondent no.4 Cooperative Cane Development Union, Chandpur and their case can be espoused only through their Society and the writ petition at the behest of individual cane growers and farmers is not maintainable.
This writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as not maintainable.
Order Date :- 22.1.2019 Kirti