ORDER
1. The petition is being disposed of finality at the admission stage with the consent of the parties.
2. U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been enacted to regulate the supply and purchase of Sugarcane required for use in Sugar Factories. The Cane Com-missioner exercising powers under Section 15 of the Act passed an order on Nov. 9, 1994 assigning 'Khurpiya Farm' to the petitioner-Kichha Sugar Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Kichha Sugar Mill). Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Cane Commissioner, M/ s. Keshar Enterprises Ltd. Baheri respondent No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as Bahari Sugar Mill) preferred an appeal before the State Government under subsection (4) of Section 15 of the Act. The appeal was allowed by the order dated January 19, 1995 and the order of the Cane Commissioner was modified and 'Khurpiya Farm' was assigned to Baheri Sugar Mill. The present writ petition has been filed by Kichha Sugar Mill for quashing of the aforesaid order.
3. Sri V.K. Birla, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 905 of 1995 (U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. Rampur v. State of U.P. and others) decided on Feb. 15, 1995 has urged that it is obligatory upon the State Government to hear the concerned factory and Cane Growers Co-operative Society while deciding an appeal under subsection (4) of Section 15 of the Act. He has further urged that the Appellate Authority has also to take into consideration the facility of transport, previous reservation and assignment orders, views of the Cane Growers Co-operative Society, arrangments made by the Factory for payment of price etc. in previous years and efforts made by the factory in developing the area apart from the distance of the factory and quantity of cane to be crushed in terms of Rule 22 of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Learned counsel has submitted that the Appellate Authority, after noticing the fact that Khurpiya Form was at a distance of only 3-4 Kms. from the gate of Kichha Sugar Mill but was 19 Kms. from Baheri Sugar Mill, did not take into consideration this important aspect of the matter while passing the final order. It is also urged that all the relevant factors which the Appellate Authority is bound to take into consideration interms of Rule 22 of the Rules as emphasised in the decision of this Court in writ petition No. 905 of 1995 has not been taken into consideration. Sri Dinesh Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 has submitted that though the appeal before the State Government was preferred by Baheri Sugar Mill, but the said appeal was not at the instance of a Sugar Mill but at the instance of a Cane grower and therefore the provisions of Rule 22 cannot be pressed into service in order to balance the claim of two rival sugar mills.
4. It may be noted that Baheri Sugar Mill (respondent No. 4) is the owner of Khurpiya Form and cultivates cane therein 'Cane Grower' has been defined in Section 2(e) of the Act and it means a person who cultivates cane either by himself or by members of his family or by hired labourer and who is not a member of a Cane Growers Co-operative Society. It is, therefore, obvious that Baheri Sugar Mill (respondent No. 4) while pressing its claim for assignment of 'Khurpiya Form' in its favour is not coming in the capacity of a Sugar Mill but is coming in the capacity of a Cane-Grower. Therefore, while considering its claim as against the claim of Kichha Sugar Mill, the provisions of Rule 22 of the Rules cannot be strictly applied. It is not a case where the factors enumerated in Rule 22 have to be weighed in favour of two rival sugar factories. On the contrary, it is a case where a Cane Grower wants that the came grown by it should be reseved in its favour and should not be reserved in favour of another sugar factory. In such a situation the closeness of the area from the Sugar Factory cannot be given much importance.
5. The order passed by the Cane Commissioner on Nov. 9, 1994 also mentions that in continuation of the order passed by the State Government Baheri Sugar Factory will be entitled to carry on research work for improvement of the quality of seed and sugarcane in Khurpiya Farm. The Appellate Authority has held that the Baheri Sugar Mill is entitled to the fruits of the research work carried on in its Kurpiya Form and also to the improved quality of sugarcane produced by h. Sub-rules (g) and (h) of Rule 22 of the Rules lay emphasis upon the view of the Cane Growers Co-operative Society of the area and efforts made by the factory in developing the reserved for assigned area. The order passed by the Appellate Authority satisfies the requirement of sub-rules (g) and (h) of Rule 22 of the Rules inasmuch as it is not disputed that Baheri Sugar Mill being the owner of Khurpiya Farm is the cane grower and it has made efforts for developing the area by carrying on research and producing better quality of seed of sugarcane. Thus the order passed by the Appellate Authority cannot be assailed on the ground that it is not in accordance with Rule 22 of the Rules.
6. It may be noticed that while considering the provisions of the Act and the position of a cane grower the Supreme Court in Tika Ramji v. State of U.P., AIR 1956 SC 676 observed as follows in para 50 of the report.
"Just as he is not bound to become a member of a Cane growers' Co-operative Society he is equally not bound to offer his sugarcane for sale to the occupier of a factory even if he happens to be a cane growner within the area reserved for that factory. His freedom in that behalf is absolutely unrestricted and we do not see how it can be urged that the provisions of the impugned Act and notification dated 27-9-1954 are violative of his fundamental right under Art. 19(1)(c) of the Constitution."
7. It is, therefore, obvious that the Baheri Sugar Mill being a cane grower cannot be compelled to supply the sugarcane produced by it to the petitioner Kichha Sugar Mill.
9. For the reasons mentioned above, there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage.
10. Petition dismissed.