Madhya Pradesh High Court
Lallu Singh vs State Of M.P. And Ors. on 26 February, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(2)MPHT261
Author: Rajendra Menon
Bench: Rajendra Menon
ORDER A.K. Gohil, J.
1. Petitioner has filed this pro bono publico petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India stating therein that the petitioner is an agriculturist of Village Dihayala, Tehsil Narwar, District Shivpuri. He is also sugarcane grower and supplying the sugarcane to the sugar factories. In the petition, it is alleged that around 10,000 acres of land was reserved for growing sugarcane in Tehsil Karera and Tehsil Narwar. Crop of sugarcane is ready but now the sugar factory, respondent No. 12 for whom the area is reserved is not purchasing the sugarcane and because of the reservation and ban imposed by the Cane Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, the farmers are not in a position to sell their produce of sugarcane to any other factory or to any other purchaser except to the Gwalior Sugar Company Limited, Dabra (respondent No. 12). Copy of letter dated 8th December, 2006 issued by the Gwalior Sugar Company Limited, Dabra was placed on record as Annexure P-1, in which it has been mentioned that the petitioner will supply sugarcane at the rate of Rs. 113/-per quintal, to the respondent, Gwalior Sugar Company and the company will accept 4 trucks sugarcane daily and payment of the same shall be made after fifteen days. It is alleged in the petition that because of the reservation and ban, the farmers are not in a position to sell the sugarcane to any other factory or out side of the State of Madhya Pradesh and they are only bound to sell the sugarcane to the respondent No. 12 - factory but the respondent No. 12, factory is not in a position to purchase the entire crop of sugar cane of Tehsil Narwar and Karera and as a result of the aforesaid action and policy, the crop of sugarcane is lying in the field, is getting dry and the farmers are at the verge of starvation.
2. On the aforesaid urgency, notices were issued by this Court and on 21st February, 2007, a direction was given that the Cane Commissioner and a representative of the respondent No. 12, factory shall remain present personally in the Court. In compliance of the order, the Cane Commissioner and the Joint Managing Director of respondent No. 12, company are present in the Court. Cane Commissioner has filed reply along with his own affidavit and in the reply it is submitted that the petition which has been filed is not in the public interest and the present petitioner was working as a broker between Sugar Company and growers on commission basis. On 26th November, 2006 he made some officer to the Managing Director of respondent No. 12 for supply of sugar cane stating that weighing machine is available at his own spot, he will arrange weighing staff, labour and transport, thereafter he will make payment to the farmers within one week and thereafter the company has to pay the entire amount to him within fifteen days and he will retain Rs. 3/- per quintal, as commission for himself. The aforesaid letter is Annexure R-2. The company accepted the aforesaid offer of the petitioner on commission at the rate of Re. 1/- per quintal on 28th November, 2006, which is Annexure R-3. Looking to the facts that the petitioner failed to comply the terms of the company and was making unreasonable demands from the company, the offer was withdrawn and proposal was cancelled by the company vide letter dated 10th December, 2006, which is Annexure R-5.
3. The Cane Commissioner along with his reply submitted list of the reserved area as per village-wise for the year 2006-07 and also placed copy of the order dated 1st February, 2006 as Annexure R-8. According to which on 1st February, 2006 it was made clear that there shall be no ban so far as the sale of sugarcane is concerned. In the letter addressed to the Collector, Shivpuri in which the Cane Commissioner has specifically mentioned that a sugar factory will be liable to purchase the sugarcane which shall be placed to the factory for the purpose of sale, therefore, whenever a grower will offer the sugarcane to the company, it will purchase according to the rate fixed and make the payment and if he will not offer the sugarcane for the purchase to the company, the grower shall be free to sell the same to any other factory or cooperative society. In the letter, it has been clarified that under Section 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), it has been no where provided that a farmer of the sugarcane of the reserved area is liable to sell the sugarcane only to that factory for which the land is reserved on the contrary with a view to fetch better price, growers are free to sell sugar cane to any other factory, they may also sell it outside the reserved area and may sell it to any other factory or any other agency even outside of the State and there is no restriction on selling to a particular factory. It is also made clear that the Gwalior Sugar Company, Dabra shall not compel the farmers about the sale of the aforesaid sugarcane only to their factory. The Cane Commissioner present in the Court before us submitted that a farmer is free to sell the sugarcane to any one even to outside the State of Madhya Pradesh also. From the aforesaid letter, it is clear that though area was reserved for the purpose of growing sugarcane but no such restriction has been imposed by the Cane Commissioner regarding sale to the sugar cane to a particular factory or to a particular place and from the aforesaid letter/policy decision, the farmers are free to sell their produce of sugarcane to any body outside the reserved area or outside of the State. From the aforesaid reply, it is also clear that there is no such restriction on the farmers as has been pleaded by the petitioner in the petition. The Cane Commissioner submitted that he has not received any such complaint that crop is lying or getting dry in the field of the farmers or purchasers are not available to the farmers or the farmers are not getting good price of their produce or the farmers are at the verge of starvation.
4. Shri M.C. Jain, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 12 has orally submitted that the Gwalior Sugar Company Limited, Dabra purchased about thirteen lack quintals, of sugarcane and they are paying the price within a period of fifteen days as agreed and has paid price for the produce purchased by them during the last fifteen days.
5. From the aforesaid submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties, it is clear that there is no restriction on the farmers regarding selling of crop of sugarcane to any particular factory, there is also no situation that the farmers are not getting the price for their produce or some of them are at the verge of starvation.
6. As submitted Section 15 of the Act of 1958 clearly provides that without prejudice to any order under Clause (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 19, the Cane Commissioner may, after consulting in the manner prescribed, the occupier and Cane Growers Co-operative Society, if any, in any area to be reserved for a factory reserve such area for such factory and thereupon occupier thereof shall subject to provisions of Section 22 be liable to purchase all cane grown in such area which is offered for sale to the factory.
7. From the perusal of provisions of Section 15 of the Act of 1958, it is clear that the Cane Commissioner may reserve any area for a factory, reserve such area for such factory and occupier of such factory, subject to Section 22 shall be liable to purchase all cane grown in the area which is offered for sale to the factory. This section imposes obligation on the factory for whom area is reserved to purchase all cane grown in the area but does not impose any obligation to the grower to offer it for sale to that factory. Therefore, under the law growers are not bound by any reservation to offer for sale to that factory or to any particular factory. The position of the farmers and growers under the law is very clear. It is for the growers to offer it for sale to the factory or not to offer and in that case it is rightly submitted by Cane Commissioner that they are free to sell it to any other party/factory or agency or co-operative society in the State or outside of the State.
8. As argued, we have also perused the conduct of the petitioner. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent/State that the petitioner is not the sugarcane producer and this fact is clear from the copies of the Khasra entries of the petitioner produced by the respondents as Annexure R-1 in which no crop of sugarcane has been mentioned. Even otherwise, we have not found the allegations of the petitioner as true. We are satisfied with the reply submitted by the Cane Commissioner. We have perused the order dated 1st February, 2006 issued by the Cane Commissioner, Bhopal (Annexure R-8) by which he has clarified the legal position as stated supra. Under the law and as per the order, there is no restriction on the cane growers, they are free to sell their produce of sugarcane to any factory or to any person in the area, even outside the reserved area and outside the State of Madhya Pradesh with a view to fetch good price. Thus, we do not find any merit in this petition.
9. Recently, in the case of Neetu v. State of Punjab and Ors. 2007 AIR SCW 448, the Supreme Court has held that public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and that the judicatory has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest an ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking and in Paragraph 10 it was observed as under:
Public interest litigation is a weapon which has to be used with great care and circumspection and the judiciary has to be extremely careful to see that behind the beautiful veil of public interest any ugly private malice, vested interest and/or publicity seeking is not lurking. It is to be used as an effective weapon in the armoury of law for delivering social justice to the citizen. The attractive brand name of public interest litigation should not be allowed to be used for suspicious products of mischief. It should be aimed at redressal of genuine public wrong or public injury and not publicity oriented or founded on personal vedetta. As indicated above, court must be careful to see that a body of persons or member of public, who approaches the Court is acting bonafide and not for personal gain or private motive or political motivation or other oblique consideration. The Court must not allow its process to be abused for oblique considerations by masked phantoms who monitor at times from behind. Some persons with vested interest indulge in the pastime of meddling with judicial process either by force of habit or from improper motives and try to bargain for a good deal as well to enrich themselves. Often they are actuated by a desire to win notoriety or cheap popularity. The petitions of such busy bodies deserve to be thrown out by rejection at the threshold, and in appropriate cases with exemplary costs.
10. Thus, it is clear that the petitioner who has filed this petition was working as a broker between the cane growers and factory and he was aware that though the area was reserved for the benefit of the sugar factories but the cane growers are not obliged to sell their produce to respondent No. 12, factory. It is clear that the petitioner filed this petition with some oblique motive with a view to gain some personal interest or personal vendetta against the factory and it is also apparent that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and he has filed the petition to raise the personal vendetta and the petition was not filed for the benefit of larger public interest.
11. Consequently, the petition being devoid of any merit and substance is hereby dismissed.
12. The amount of security is forfeited. The same be deposited with the Legal Services Authority, Gwalior.
13. In the end as prayed by the parties, order of the Sugarcane Commissioner dated 1st February, 2006 be published in the daily news papers in the larger public interest. Accordingly, the respondent/State is directed to public the said order and wider publicity be given in public interest so that the cane growers may know that there are no restrictions on the sale of sugarcane to a particular factory even after reservation of land for crop of sugarcane.