Allahabad High Court
Akram Khan And Another vs State Of U.P. And 03 Others on 28 November, 2019
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38324 of 2019 Petitioner :- Akram Khan And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 03 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajai Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
(Per : Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.)
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Revindra Singh, learned counsel for the fourth respondent.
2. The petitioners herein asserting themselves to be sugarcane growers who are residents of Village Nawabganj, Tehsil Sahaswan, District Budaun have filed the present writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to attach the Zarifnagar Cane Purchase Centre to D.S.M. Sugar Mills, Rajpura, District Sambhal for the convenience of the sugarcane growers in their village. A further prayer has been made for a direction to decide their representation which is stated to have been submitted before the respondents.
3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the fourth respondent have raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition at the behest of the individual cane grower is not maintainable and that any grievance in this regard can be espoused through the cane growers' co-operative society of the area in question. It is submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioners claiming themselves to be sugarcane growers of the area is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. The regulation of supply and purchase of sugarcane in the State of U.P. is governed in terms of the provisions contained under the Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 19531 and the rules made thereunder namely the Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 19542.
6. The aforementioned Act, 1953 and the Rules, 1954 contain detailed and elaborate provisions regarding supply of the sugarcane by the cane growers, its purchase by the sugar factories and payment of price thereof. In terms of the scheme of the Act, 1953, a mechanism is provided for ensuring the required continuous supply of sugarcane to the sugar factories during the crushing season. Keeping in mind the interest of the sugarcane growers, cane growers' co-operative societies, sugar factories and also the inter se interest of the sugar factories in the area, the supply of sugarcane to the sugar factories in the quantity which may reasonably be required by them for production in a particular crushing season is regulated by the provisions of the Act, 1953.
7. A duty has been cast upon the Cane Commissioner, under Section 12 of the Act, 1953 to require the occupier of each factory to furnish in the manner and by the date specified in an order to be issued by him an estimate of the quantity of the sugarcane which would be required by a factory during such crushing season or seasons as may be specified in the order. The Cane Commissioner is obliged to examine every such estimate and is enjoined to publish the same with such modifications, if any, as he may make.
8. The publication of the estimate is made for the purpose of making it known to all sugar factories that the estimates prepared by them of the requisite quantity of sugarcane for a particular crushing season or seasons has been accepted by the Cane Commissioner with or without modification. Section 13 of the Act, 1953 enjoins upon the occupier of the factory to maintain a register of all cane growers and cane growers' co-operative society or societies that sell sugarcane to the factory. In terms of Section 14 the State Government may provide for survey of the area which is proposed to be reserved or assigned for supply of sugarcane to a factory, and in terms of Section 15 the Cane Commissioner is empowered to issue an order declaring the reserved and the assigned area for the purposes of supply of sugarcane to a factory.
9. The declaration of the reserved area and assigned area under Section 15 is to be made by the Cane Commissioner after consulting the sugar factory and the cane growers' co-operative societies in the manner so prescribed.
10. The object of the declaration of the reserved area and assigned area is to minimize the conflict in claims of the sugar factories seeking supply of sugarcane which may otherwise have an adverse effect on the sugar factories as well as the cane growers of the area.
11. The guidelines which are required to be followed in reserving an area or assigning an area to a factory and determining the quantity of sugarcane to be purchased from the area by a factory are provided for under Rule 22 of the Rules, 1954.
12. The provision with regard to declaration of reserved and assigned area as contained under Section 15 of the Act, 1953 is reproduced below:-
"15. Declaration of reserved area and assigned area.--(1) Without prejudice to any order made under Clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Cane Commissioner may, after consulting the Factory and Cane-growers' Co-operative Society in the manner to be prescribed:
(a) reserve any area (hereinafter called the reserved area); and
(b) assign any area (hereinafter called an assigned area), for the purpose of the supply of cane to a factory in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 during one or more crushing seasons as may be specified and may likewise at any time cancel such order or alter the boundaries of an area so reserved or assigned.
(2) Where an area has been declared as reserved area for a factory, the occupier of such factory shall, if so directed by the Cane Commissioner, purchase all the cane grown in that area, which is offered for sale to the factory.
(3) Where any area has been declared as assigned area for a factory, the occupier of such factory shall purchase such quantity of cane grown in that area and offered for sale to the factory as may be determined by the Cane Commissioner.
(4) An appeal shall lie to the State Government against the order of the Cane Commissioner passed under sub-section (1)."
13. The guidelines for the aforesaid purpose for reserving an area or assigning an area as provided under Rule 22 of the Rules, 1954, are being extracted below:-
"22. In reserving an area for or assigning an area to a factory or determining the quantity of cane to be purchased from an area by a factory, under Section 15, the Cane Commissioner may take into consideration--
(a) the distance of the area from the factory,
(b) facilities for transport of cane from the area,
(c) the quantity of cane supplied from the area to the factory in previous year,
(d) previous reservation and assignment orders,
(e) the quantity of cane to be crushed in factory,
(f) the arrangements made by the factory in previous years for payment of cess, cane price and commission,
(g) the views of the Cane-growers' Co-operative Society of the area,
(h) efforts made by the factory in developing the reserved or assigned area,
(i) efforts made by the factory to provide information to the farmers pertaining to survey, supply tickets, weighment, payment etc. through the use of website, Short Messaging Service (SMS), Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS), Hand Held Computer (HHC), Global Positioning System (GPS), electronic weigh-bridge etc."
14. The order passed under Section 15 containing declaration of reserved area and assigned area in respect of a sugar factory is appealable before the State Government in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Act, 1953.
15. In the aforesaid manner it is seen that as per the terms of the scheme provided for under the Act, 1953 and the Rules, 1954 an elaborate mechanism has been provided to regulate the supply and purchase of sugarcane to sugar factories so as to secure the interest of the sugar factories, the sugarcane growers and also the cane co-operative societies of area. The provision for declaration of reserved area and assigned area by the Cane Commissioner after consulting the sugar factories, has also been made for the aforesaid purpose of regulating the supply and purchase of sugarcane, minimizing the conflict in claims of the sugar factories in the area and also for securing the interests of the cane growers and the cane growers' co-operative societies.
16. The guidelines provided under the Rule 22 of the Rules, 1954 provide for consideration of all the relevant factors before making a declaration of the reserved area and assigned area of a particular sugar factory. The factors which are required to be considered also include ascertaining the views of cane growers' co-operative society of the area which in turn represents the cane growers of the area.
17. The petitioners herein claiming themselves to be cane growers of the area are seeking a direction for attachment of their cane purchase centre to D.S.M. Sugar Mills in place of another sugar mill namely Yadu Sugar Mill, Bisauli to which their cane purchase centre has been attached for the ongoing crushing season. In effect the petitioners have sought to raise a grievance against the orders declaring the reserved area and the assigned area of the two sugar mills in question.
18. In view of the foregoing discussion and taking into consideration the scheme for regulating the supply and purchase of sugarcane as per the provisions contained under the Act, 1953 and the Rules, 1954, it follows that an individual cane grower would not have the right to raise a challenge to the reservation or assignment of areas to sugar factories and the grievance, if any, in this regard would have to be espoused through the cane growers' co-operative society of the area in question.
19. In this regard we may refer to a judgment of this Court in Satnam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.3 wherein a similar challenge sought to be raised by an individual cane grower in respect of reservation of cane areas was repelled and it was 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 centers 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."
20. Taking a similar view this Court in its judgment passed in the case in Dharam Veer Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.4 held that under Rule 22 of the Rules, 1954, the Cane Commissioner while passing an order of reservation of cane area is required to ascertain the view of the cane growers' co-operative society of the area and there is no requirement to issue notice to individual farmers or to ascertain their views. The observations made in the judgment are as follows:-
"We find no merit in this claim because under the relevant Rule-22 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954, the Cane Commissioner while passing the initial order for reservation of cane area is required to ascertain the views of the Cane Growers Cooperative Society of the area. There is no requirement even at that stage to issue notice to individual farmers or ascertain their views. Hence there can be no such responsibility or liability upon the State Government while hearing the appeal under Section 15(4) of the Act to issue notice to individual farmers like the petitioners."
21. In a recent judgment of this Court in Harveer Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Ors.5 the aforementioned legal position has again been reiterated and it has been held that writ petition at the behest of an individual cane growers seeking to raise grievances with regard to reservation or assignment of cane areas is not maintainable and that their cause can be espoused only by the cane growers' co-operative society.
22. Having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances the position which emerges is that in terms of the provisions for under the Act, 1953 and the Rules, 1954 an elaborate mechanism is provided for reservation and assignment of cane areas to sugar factories in order to regulate the supply and purchase of sugarcane in their area. The factors which are taken into consideration include ascertaining the views of the cane growers' co-operative society of the area. The individual cane growers have therefore no right or locus standi to raise any challenge to reservation or assignment of cane areas in favour of a particular sugar factory and any grievance in this regard is to be espoused only through the cane growers' co-operative society which represents the cane growers of the area.
23. We are therefore not inclined to entertain the present writ petition which has been filed by the petitioners claiming to be sugarcane growers of the area in their individual capacities.
24. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Shahroz