Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The submission is that a particular sugar mill to which cane purchase area has been assigned/reserved, same should not be withdrawn merely on non-fulfillment or want of any one factor.

In support of his contention reliance has been placed upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2000 (2) A.W.C. 1014, Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and others wherein the Division Bench, interpreting the provisions of Rule 22, has held that the provisions of the Act and Rules in unmistakable terms provide that the order for assignment or reservation of an area has to be passed after taking into consideration various factors and it cannot be based upon one solitary consideration.

As already noted above the impugned order is based only on a comparative statement of the drawal percentage of the petitioner and the respondent no.4. It is only on this factor that the Dalhedi-II and Sirsali-I sugarcane purchase centers have been withdrawn from the petitioner and given to the respondent no.4, which in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Triveni Engineering (supra) is unsustainable.

Learned counsel for the respondent next submitted that even though the Dalhedi-II and Sirsali-I sugarcane centers were assigned to the petitioner-mill from 2007-08 continuously till passing of the impugned order but appeals had been filed against all such assignments in the past.