ORDER
Pradeep Kant, J.
1. These are three writ petitions which required adjudication on common question of law.
2. Two writ petitions viz. ; Writ Petition Nos. 325 and 326 (MS) of 2000, filed on the same day after effecting service upon the opposite parties and after filing the counter-affidavits by the contesting parties. are being decided and finally disposed of with the consent of the parties counsel by a common order as the 'lis' is between the same parties which involves certain common question of law. Both the writ petitions have been filed by Govind Nagar Sugar Ltd. Walterganj, Basti [hereinafter referred to as 'Walterganj Mills' for short) against Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. Babhnan district Gonda (hereinafter referred to as 'Babhnan Mills' for short). In both the writ petitions the orders passed by the State Government under Section 15 (4) of U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953. have been challenged.
3. The most important and common questions of law pressed in the writ petitions are :
(i) whether the estimate of sugarcane as determined under Section 12 of the Act is conclusive and final for the purpose of reservation and assignment of area for purchase of sugarcane by the sugar factory?
(ii) Whether there can be an order of joint purchase of sugarcane in favour of two or more sugar factories in respect of one reserved area?
4. Besides the above, the third point raised in Writ Petition No. 325 (MS) of 2000, is that the State Government while passing the impugned order in appeal did not take into consideration the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules including Rule 22 of the Rules.
5. The first two questions referred to above can be safely taken up together for the benefit of both the writ petitions, namely, Writ Petition Nos. 325 and 326 (MS) of 2000. whereas the third question would be considered and answered by separate reasoning in the present order itself.
6. In the third Writ Petition No. 544 (MS) of 2000, which was filed at a later date, the only question pressed is question No. (ii) referred to above. although the order passed by the State Government in appeal under Section 15 (4) is under challenge. The U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short) was enacted with the object of regulating the supply and purchase of sugarcane required for the use in sugar factories (or Gur, Rob and Khandsari Sugar Manufacturing Unit) and other connected matters. We are here concerned with the supply and purchase of sugarcane required for the use in sugar factories in the instant writ petitions.
Question No. 1
(i) whether the estimate of sugarcane as determined under Section 12 of the Act is conclusive and final for the purpose of reservation and assignment of area, for purchase of sugarcane by the sugar factory
7. The Supreme Court had an occasion to test the constitutionality of the Act in the case of Ch. Tika Ramji and others etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, AIR 1956 SC 676, wherein the Supreme Court after tracing the history of the enactment upheld the validity of the Act and thus upheld the powers of the Cane Commissioner under the Act in the matter of Regulation of supply and purchase of sugarcane to the sugar factories and other sugar manufacturing units.
8. The dispute regarding the orders of reservation of an area by the Cane Commissioner and the outcome of the appeal preferred before the State Government by the aggrieved sugar factories consume a considerable time of the High Court almost every year at the start of the crushing season. Despite several statutory provisions and the guidelines being provided under the Act and the Rules coupled by various pronouncement of the Courts making it clear that the Cane Commissioner cannot use the powers conferred upon him in a discriminatory manner so as to violate fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution and if he does act. arbitrarily, the orders of the Cane Commissioner are open to scrutiny under appeal by the State Government under Section 15 of the Act, the influx of such petitions could not be controlled.
9. The main purpose of the Act is. to provide mechanism for reasonable, necessary, sufficient and continuous supply of sugarcane to the sugar factories in the crushing season keeping in mind the interest of the cane growers, the Cane Growers' Cooperative Societies, the sugar factories and also inter-se interest of the sugar factories. The supply of sugarcane to the sugar factories in the quantity which may be reasonably required by them for production in a particular season or seasons is to be regulated by the provisions of this Act. While watching the interest of the sugarcane growers', it is implicit and obligatory upon the authorities to strike a balance in the interest of sugar factories and cane growers. Since there may be sugar factories more than one in number, which may claim certain areas as the reserved area looking to their location, the obligation extends upon the authorities to watch the inter-se interest of such sugar factories also.
10. With a view to materialize regular supply of sugarcane in a healthy congenial and peaceful atmosphere and by avoiding any such order or action which may cause or is likely to cause any unhealthy competition between the sugar factories or cane growers or which may create or is likely to create any law and order problem or which may give an opportunity or is likely to give an opportunity to the sugar factories or cane growers to exploit their position illegally, the Cane Commissioner has been vested with the powers to reserve an area by allotting specific sugarcane centers to the sugar factories after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules. The orders so passed by the Cane Commissioner can be subjected to an appeal under Section 15 (4) of the Act before the State Government. The powers of the Cane Commissioner and the State Government are coordinate and coextensive to each other. The Cane Commissioner while passing an order of reservation under Section 15 (1) of the Act has to take into consideration various factors and so is the case, in appeal, when the matter is being considered by the State Government.
11. The duty and obligation imposed upon the Cane Commissioner does not come to an end by passing an initial order of Reservation or Assignment, with respect to every sugar factory but under the provisions of the Act, he is under a duty to see that continuous, proper and reasonable supply of sugarcane is available to the sugar factories, throughout the crushing season. The continuous maintenance of supply of sugarcane is the essence of the order of reservation and assignment of the area. The sugar industry should not be permitted to come to a halt or suffer damage for want of a watchful eye of the Cane Commissioner in discharging his legal obligation of maintaining reasonable proper and continuous supply of the sugarcane to the sugar factories who have the capacity to produce the sugar for the full crushing season. The sugar factories for manufacturing the sugar are certainly entitled to reasonable supply of sugarcane in order to secure the reasonable return proportionate to the overall investment made by them, by striking an equivalence between competitive sugar factories and also by protecting the interest of cane growers and their societies. All production and investment, provided by the sugar factories should also give economic protection to the cane growers also.
12. Sections 2 (a) and 2 (n) define the term 'reserved area' and 'assigned area' which means an area reserved to a factory under Section 15 and an area assigned for a factory under an order for reservation of sugarcane areas made under Rule 125B of the Defence of India Rules, 1962, and when no such order is in force, the area specified in an order made under Section 15 :
'Crushing season' has been defined in Section 2 (i) which means the period beginning on 1st October in any year and ending on the 15th July next following.
'Occupier' has been defined in Section 2 (k) in relation to a factory or gur, rob or khandsari sugar manufacturing unit, which means the person (including a company. firm or other association of individuals) who, or the authority which, owns or has the ultimate control over the affairs of such factory or unit and where the said affairs are entrusted to a Managing Agent or a Director or other officer of such person or authority, includes such Managing Agent, Director or other officer.
13. The administrative machinery for the purpose of the Act has been provided under Chapter II of the Act which consists- of the Sugarcane Board as provided in Section 3 which have to perform the functions as provided in Section 4. The functions include giving advice to the State Government in the matters pertaining to the regulation of supply and purchase of cane for a sugar factory and the maintenance of healthy relations between occupiers/ managers of the factories, Cane Growers' Cooperative Societies and Cane Development Council. And also such other matter as may be prescribed by Rules as given in Section 2 (1) of the Act. The Development Council comes into existence by Section 5 of the Act and the functions of the Council has been detailed in Section 6 of the Act. Over all functions of the Council is to develop the area and the development of cane varieties, cane seed, sowing programme, fertilizers and manures : and also to impart technical training to cultivators in matters relating to the production of cane, to administer the funds at its disposal of the execution of the development scheme subject to the general or special directions of the Cane Commissioner and to perform other prescribed functions pertaining and conducive to the general development of the zone.
The Inspectors appointed under Section 11 of the Act are required to perform the duties and exercise the powers conferred or imposed upon them by or under this Act.
14. The scheme of the Act with respect to supply and purchase of the Cane finds specific mention in Chapter III. This Chapter provides for determination, of estimated quantity of sugarcane and in what manner and by whom the areas would be declared as reserved area or assigned area besides the manner and procedure to be adopted in doing so.
15. Section 12 provides for the estimate of requirements and reads as follows :
12. Estimate of requirements :
(1) The Cane Commissioner, may for purposes of Section 15. by order, require the occupier of any factory to furnish in the manner and by the date specified in the order to the Cane Commissioner an estimate of the quantity of cane which will be required by the factory during such crushing season (or crushing seasons) as may be specified in the order.
(2) The Cane Commissioner shall examine every such estimate and shall publish the same with such modifications, if any, as he may make.
(3) An estimate under sub-section (2) may be revised by an authority to be prescribed.
16. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sudhir Chandra. Senior Advocate is that the estimate prepared under Section 12 is not final and the Cane Commissioner at the time of allotment of Centres while reserving an area to a sugar factory has ample power to reserve much more area for supply of much more sugarcane as against the estimate prepared under Section 12, if the Cane Commissioner, is satisfied that the sugar factory requires larger quantity of sugarcane. Consequently a sugar factory can also claim larger quantity of sugarcane at the time of reservation, irrespective of the estimate finalized under Section 12 of the Act.
17. The learned counsel Sri Umesh Chandra, Senior Advocate in response to the aforesaid argument has asserted that in case the sugar factory is given liberty to ignore the estimate prepared and published under Section 12 of the Act, the whole purpose of the Act would be frustrated and would lead to anomalous results. His argument is that the Cane Commissioner has to assess the yield of sugarcane in the entire State and its requirement to all the sugar factories for the crushing season. The Cane Commissioner has to pass an order of reservation or assignment of area, by taking into consideration the over all yield of the sugarcane and the reasonable requirement of sugarcane by each sugar factory so as to permit its crushing throughout the crushing season to the utmost of its capacity as far as possible. The estimate is prepared and published under Section 12 and in the absence of such estimate it would not be possible for the Cane Commissioner to make orders of reservation of an area for the purpose of regular and continuous supply of sugarcane to the sugar factory. The fact that sub-clause (2) of Section 12 says that the Cane Commissioner shall examine every estimate and shall publish the same with such modification, if any, as he may make, which estimate in turn, is open to challenge under sub-section (3) of Section 12 by filing a revision before the Prescribed Authority, makes it abundantly clear that the order passed by the Cane Commissioner under sub-section (2) of Section 12 are final subject to the orders, if any passed in revision under sub-section (3) of Section 12. The sugar factories cannot go beyond the estimate finalsied under Section 12.
18. Sri Sudhir Chandra in buttress of his contention that the estimate prepared under Section 12 cannot be final even for the purpose of Section 15 of the Act, stressed that for knowing the real import and effect of the aforesaid provision, a purposive interpretation has to be made which should be in consonance with the object of the Act and the intention of the Legislature. In support of this argument, he relied upon the case of Alma Ram Mittal v. Ishwar Singh Puma, (1988) 4 SCC 284. In this case the Apex Court was dealing with the provisions of Sections 1 (3) and 13 (1) Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction] Act, 1973, where it was observed as 'purpose of legislation would thus be defeated. Purposive Interpretation in a social amelioration legislation is an imperative irrespective of anything else'. In para 9 of the said report. their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under :
'Judicial time and energy is more often than not consumed in finding what is the intention of the Parliament or in other words, the will of the people. Blackstone tells us that the fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the legislator is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law was made, by signs most natural and probable. And these signs are either the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law. (emphasis by the Court) See Commentaries on the Laws of England (facsimile of 1st Edn. of 1765. University of Chicago Press, 1979 Vol. I p. 59). Mukherji, J., as the learned Chief Justice then was. in Poppatlal Shah v. State of Madras, said that each word, phrase or sentence was to be construed in the light of purpose of the Act itself. But words must be construed with imagination of purpose behind them said Judge Learned Hand, a long time ago. It appears, therefore, that though we are concerned with seeking of intention, we are rather looking to the meaning of the words that the Legislature has used and the true meaning of what words as was said by Lord Reid in Black-Clawson International Ltd. v. Papierwerke Waldh of Aschaffenburg A.G. We are clearly of the opinion that having regard to the language we must find the reason and the spirit of the law.'
19. In the case of Bajaj Tempo Ltd. Bombay v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City, (1992) 3 SCC 78, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that adopting literal construction in such cases would have resulted in defeating the very purpose of Section 15C of income-tax Act, 1992. Therefore, it comes necessary to resort to a construction which is reasonable and purposive to make the provision meaningful.
20. Reliance was also placed upon a case Forest Range Officer and others v. P. Mohammed Ali and others, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 627, wherein the Supreme Court while holding a Sandalwood oil as a 'wood oil' within the meaning of Section 2(f)(i) of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961, while defining the words 'includes' in the definition under Section 2 (f) held that it did not intend to exclude what would ordinarily and in common parlance be spoken of as wood oil. The expression being technical and being part of an inclusive definition has to be construed in its technical sense but in an exhaustive manner ; it cannot be restricted in such a manner so as to defeat the principal object and purpose of the Act. The word 'include' is generally used as a word of extension. When used in interpretation clause, it seeks to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of Statute. The word wood oil used in the Act will require purposive interpretation drawing the context in which the words are used and its meaning will have to be discovered having regard to the intention and object which Legislature seeks to subserve.
21. Elaborating his argument, the learned counsel relied upon a case S. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1996) 4 SCC 596. wherein the Apex Court observed that it is a well known rule of interpretation of Statutes that the text and the context of the entire Act must be looked into while interpreting any of the expressions used in a Statute. The Courts must look to the object which the Statute seeks to achieve while interpreting any of the provisions of the Act. A purposive approach for interpreting the Act is necessary.
22. In support of his contention that the Legislative intent has to be seen, the learned counsel also relied upon the cases Union of India v. Jiwajirao Sugar Co. Ltd. and others, (1988) 1 SCC 717, Belapur Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise Aurangabad, (1999) 4 SCC 103 and Ranjeet Singh v. Harmohinder Singh Pradhan, (1999) 4 SCC 517.
23. The purport and import of Section 12 has to be gathered from the object and purpose of the Act. The Act is a regulatory Act which regulates the supply, and purchase of sugarcane required by the sugar factories for getting reasonable, sufficient supply of sugarcane in a particular crushing season, which supply of course, is to be quantified by taking into consideration, not only the interest of the sugar factories but also the interest of the Cane Growers' Cooperative Societies and other sugar factories. The Act, therefore, provides a procedure for calculating the overall requirement of sugarcane which may be needed by the respective sugar factories in a particular crushing season and for the purpose of assessing this requirement, the provisions of Section 12 have to be adhered to. The estimate which is to be prepared under Section 12 is for the purpose of Section 15 of the Act. Section 15 deals with the declaration of reserved area and assigned area. The very opening words of Section 12 namely 'the Cane Commissioner may for the purpose of Section 15.........' leaves no room of doubt that this estimate is to be prepared for the purpose of Section 15 which in consequence means that such an estimate shall form the basis of allotting reserved area or assigned area to a particular sugar factory.
24. The provisions of Section 12 have been incorporated for facilitating the work of the Cane Commissioner and also to put a check from orders of reservation or assignment being arbitrary. The Cane Commissioner and Sugar Factory both have knowledge of the requirement of sugarcane, even before the orders of reservation are passed.
25. A duty has been cast upon the Cane Commissioner to require the occupier of each factory to furnish in the manner and by the date specified in an order issued by the Cane Commissioner, an estimate of quantity of cane which would be required by a factory during such crushing season or seasons as may be specified in the order. The Cane Commissioner, therefore, has to issue an order by means of which he would make the occupier of every factory to furnish the estimated quantity of cane as per requirement of the sugar factory for a particular crushing season or seasons which should be done in a manner and by the date specified by the Cane Commissioner. The Cane Commissioner again is obliged to examine every such estimate and has the liberty to modify the same and with such modification, if any, the publication of the estimate is done for the purpose of making it known to all sugar factories that the estimate prepared by them for the requisite quantity of sugarcane for a particular crushing season or seasons has been accepted by the Cane Commissioner with or without any modification. In case any sugar factory is not satisfied with the estimate so modified or otherwise may file a revision before the Prescribed Authority. It has been stated that the State Government is the Prescribed Authority under Rule 23A of U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules. 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short) and the period for filing such revision is 14 days. After estimates are published, the survey, etc. shall be made under Section 18 for the purpose of Section 15. It is inherent that while making an area reserved for sugar factory, the total yield of sugarcane which is likely to occur in that area is to be taken into consideration. The areas are reserved basically for continuous and proper supply of sugarcane to every sugar factory so that it may run smoothly throughout the crushing season with the best possible recovery.
26. In the case of Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. The State of U. P. and others, 1994 (II) HVD 308 (All), this Court took a view that the Cane Commissioner passes an order of reservation on the estimate as prepared under Section 12 of the Act which estimate is prepared before the crushing season starts. The facts and figures on the basis of which these estimates are prepared before the start of the crushing season may vary during the progress of the season and the actualities and the developments which come to light with the progress of the crushing season and have a bearing on the estimates on the basis whereof the orders regarding reservation and assignment are passed before the beginning of the season cannot be ignored. In fact, the determination of the area to be reserved and assigned in effect has to be a continuous process depending upon the exigencies of the situation and the changing factors which come to light with the progress of the crushing season. The factors on which the estimates are chalked out before the beginning of the crushing season may vary during the progress of the crushing season and in order to adjust the equities, such developments which take place and new factors which come to light if brought to the notice of the concerned authorities, may justify alterations and modifications in the boundaries of the reserved area or may warrant change, in the assignment ordered at the beginning of the season. The scheme of the Act vests the authorities concerned with ample Jurisdiction to vary or alter the reserved or assigned area during the currency of the crushing season to meet the exigencies of the situation. This is obvious from what has been specifically provided for in Sections 15 and 16 of the Act.
27. A combined reading of Sections 12 and 15 would lead to a conclusion that at the time of declaration of reserved and assigned area under Section 15 the estimate as published under Section 12 shall be the basis for consideration by the Cane Commissioner for the purpose of quantifying the requirement of sugarcane for every sugar factory. The requirement of 'estimate' and thereafter the allotment of reserved area is reasonable procedure for which no exception can be taken. The controversy arises when the sugar factory or occupier of a sugar factory do not either submit their estimate as provided under Section 12 (1) or if the estimates are submitted the same is modified by the Cane Commissioner or in any case any estimate which is published by the Cane Commissioner with respect to a sugar factory which attains conclusiveness either by filing or not filing the revision before the Prescribed Authority and such sugar factory at any time before the order of reservation is passed by the Cane Commissioner, claims more sugarcane as against the published estimated requirement of sugarcane under Section 12.
28. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this estimate provided under Section 12 is not final and the Sugar Factory can claim more sugarcane even at the time of allotment of Cane Reservation Centre. The Cane Commissioner also has ample Jurisdiction and authority to enlarge, increase or decrease the quantity of sugarcane while making allotment of reserved area.
29. The estimate so prepared under Section 12 is final or not and is either conclusive or not has to be tested with the aid of certain other provisions of the Act and the Rules. While doing so, the scheme of the Act, its object and purpose cannot be lost sight of. The interpretation of various provisions of the Act, has to be done in a manner which furthers the object of the Act.
30. Besides Section 12 of the Act which requires the sugar factory to submit their estimate of required sugarcane in the manner prescribed by the Cane Commissioner by means of order, the provisions of Rule 21 of the Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short), is also of much significance. Rule 21 which falls in Chapter VI deals with the 'reservation and assignment of area' reads as under :
21. (1) The occupier of a factory shall by August 31. each year apply to the Cane Commissioner, in Form 1. Appendix III. for the reservation or assignment of an area for supply of cane to the factory during the ensuing crushing season.
(2) The Cane Commissioner may, for special reason, entertain an application for reservation or assignment of an area, made after the commencement of a crushing season.
(3) Every such application shall be accompanied by a Treasury receipt showing that a fee of rupees two has been deposited in the local treasury.
31. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule would indicate that the occupier of a factory by 31st August each year shall apply to the Cane Commissioner in Form-1. Appendix-111 for reservation or assignment of an area for supply of cane to the factory during ensuing crushing season. Sub-clause (2) gives power to the Cane Commissioner to entertain application for reservation or assignment of an area made after commencement of the crushing season, of course on some special reason. If Section 12 is to be read along with Rule 21, it would be found that the requirement to be performed under Rule 21 is to be done at a later date after the whole exercise is undertaken under Section 12. It has been stated at Bar as well as by the learned standing counsel that the estimates under Section 12 are prepared some time in March and April every year, whereas the requirement of submitting an application for reservation and assignment of an area in Form I, Appendix-III is at a later date. i.e.. upto 31st of August. This Form has many Heads and bears the heading 'Application for reservation and assignment of area'. In Part A of the said Form, besides other particulars which are to be given by the occupier, item No. 4 requires the particulars of crushing of cane in the last three seasons which means quantity crushed in the lac quintals, number of working days, date of starting and closing the operation in the last three seasons wherein Part B item No. 10 mentions the name of purchasing centers that may be reserved or assigned and also the details of Rail or Road have to be given. In item No. 11 the names of any new road or rail center proposed to be added to or deleted or transferred from the existing lists of villages attached to various centers are to be provided. The classification of the heads in Form I has been made in a manner so as to make it convenient to the Cane Commissioner to reserve such area and number of cane centers to a sugar factory which would be sufficient to meet the requirement of regular supply of sugar cane for the quantity which would be crushed in the ensuing crushing season. The various particulars which are required to be given in a Form provide a date and idea regarding actual crushing done by the sugar factories in the last three seasons and also the areas reserved or assigned to it in the last three years.
32. Section 12 deals with the estimate of sugarcane which is likely to be consumed by a sugar factory in a particular crushing season whereas Rule 21 requires the sugar factory to apply for an area which it wishes to get under reservation order or by assignment under Section 15 for the purpose of having the required supply of sugarcane as determined under Section 12 (i). Apparently the two provisions operate in two different fields and deal with two different aspect of the supply of sugarcane but in substance it is the quantity of sugarcane which is essentially required to be determined for continuous supply to the sugar factory.
33. The requirement of giving the details of actual quantity of the sugarcane crushed for the last three seasons coupled with the area reserved and the new areas proposed gives an opportunity to the Cane Commissioner to regulate the supply of sugarcane in a more effective manner so that it meets the object of the Act. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a joint reading of provisions of Section 12 and Rule 21. does not make the estimate prepared under Section 12 conclusive and final, does not take into account at all, that Section 12 quantifies the sugarcane required whereas Rule 21 apparently requires the declaration of such area reserved or assigned which may be capable of supplying the estimated required sugarcane. The estimate thus prepared under Section 12 and duly published by the Cane Commissioner which has not been challenged in revision before the State Government or if challenged, such estimate which has been ultimately finalized by the State Government shall be final only for the limited purpose for declaration of reserved or assigned area under Section 15 of the Act. The words 'for the purpose of Section 15' occurring in Section 12 speak about the intention of the Legislature. The words 'for the purpose of Section 15' are of some significance and importance. 'Purpose' means the result, which is desired to obtain and which is kept in mind in performing an action. The corollary is that the provisions of Section 12 have been incorporated in the Act for achieving the desired result and determination of estimate so made has to be kept in mind by the Cane Commissioner in performing duties under Section 15. The same phraseology has been used in Rule 21 also. The distinction as pointed out earlier is that under Section 12 it is quantity of the sugarcane which is estimated and under Rule 21 it is the area which is required to be reserved or assigned for meeting the said requirement of sugarcane under Section 15.
34. The dictionary meaning of the word 'estimate' given in Webster Dictionary is a judgment of size, number, quantity, value, distance, quality etc. esp. of something which needs calculation or assessment. An estimate can vary, according to context, from a rough guess to close determination, a statement of cost or charge which would be involved in a given piece of work or a tender to carry it out for a certain sum.
35. The learned State counsel on the strength of the meaning of the word 'estimate' submitted that since it is rough calculation, it may vary when a close determination is to be made, the estimate prepared in Section 12 may or may not be conclusive but the Cane Commissioner has got full authority to allot more sugarcane even at the time of passing of initial order of allotment of assigned and reserved area under Section 15 of the Act. He also placed reliance on Rule 21 in support of his above submission.
36. No doubt the term 'estimate' denotes a rough calculation or rough assessment which may vary when actually determined but in view of opportunity given to the sugar factory for providing estimate under Section 12 (1) and thereafter the exercise to be undertaken by the Cane Commissioner who is to examine the requirement objectively before publishing the same in accordance with sub-clause (2) of Section 12 attaches an element of finality to the aforesaid determination. The finality is further reflected when an opportunity has been provided by means of statutory right of revision against the notification of the Cane Commissioner. The purpose, therefore, is that the Cane Commissioner may have an exact picture as far as possible with respect to entire cane available in the area and the requirement of every sugar factory, as in the absence of such an assessment, it may not be possible for the Cane Commissioner to make a just order of reservation under Section 15 (1). In case every occupier of the sugar factory is permitted to ignore the estimate published under Section 12 at the time of passing of reservation order under Section 15, the whole scheme of the Act may not be effectively carried into. Thus, if the Cane Commissioner relies upon the estimate prepared under Section 12 for the purposes of declaration of reserved or assigned area under Section 15 (1) unless there is something very exceptional, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by him. This does not mean that even if a sugar factory bona fide requires more sugarcane than the quantity estimated for such sugar factory, would not have any right to take any additional sugarcane or Cane Commissioner would not have any authority or power to allot more sugarcane by making further reservation of area or assignment in his favour. The supply of sugarcane by means of reservation and assignment of an area is a continuous process throughout the crushing season and as and when the shortage is felt, to the satisfaction of the Cane Commissioner by a sugar factory, it can be made good either by making reservation or assignment of further area. Thus, there are two stages under the Act for declaration of reserved area or assigned area. namely ; (1) under Section 15 initially, i.e.. at the start of crushing season when the reservation has to be made and (ii) secondly at all point of time during the entire crushing season when additional sugarcane is required by any sugar factory.
37. This proposition specifically flows from the provisions of Section15 (1) and Section 16. The statute authorizes the Cane Commissioner to cancel any area of reservation and assignment or alter the boundaries of an area so reserved or assigned during the crushing season. Section 16 provides for regulation of supply and purchase of sugarcane in a reserved or assigned area and it has been enacted with a view to maintain the supply and for that purpose the State Government has been empowered to regulate the distribution and supply of sugarcane in any reserved or assigned area and its purchase. The power of reservation and assignment includes also, the power of cancellation and alteration of such areas.
38. The Cane Commissioner is, therefore, entitled to provide additional reserved area or assigned area to sugar factory which needs more sugarcane as against its estimate as prepared under Section 12 during the continuance of the crushing season. A harmonious construction of the provisions of the Act. namely, Sections 12, 15 and 16 and Rule 21 would necessarily mean that an estimate prepared under Section 12 of the Act is final for the purpose of initial declaration of reserved or assigned area, under Section 15 (i) and it would not be open for the sugar factory to raise any grievance regarding the same, yet it is always within the authority of the Cane Commissioner to provide additional sugar cane to the sugar factory which bona fide feels the shortage of sugarcane and requires more sugarcane for producing sugar during particular crushing season or seasons. Rule 21, sub-clause (2) provides that the Cane Commissioner may. for any special reason, entertain an application for reservation or assignment of an area, made after the commencement of a crushing season. The phrase for any special reason' though qualifies but does not negate the powers of the Cane Commissioner to provide for reservation and assignment of an area to a sugar factory if area allotted to it is not found sufficient to cater the need of the factory. There may be occasions when one sugar factory to whom a certain quantity of sugarcane is available from its reserved or assigned area for various reason is not in a position to crush the entire sugarcane available in that area and at the same time there may be a sugar factory which finds shortage of sugarcane in its reserved area during the crushing season and in such a situation the Cane Commissioner can very well assign any specified area out of reserved area of the later factory to the first factory. The cases may also arise where a particular sugar factory is lying closed or has decided not to undertake the crushing in a particular crushing season for some reason or the other and in such case the areas which form part of the reserved area of such sugar factory can be assigned to any other sugar factory in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
39. The interest of the sugar factory is not jeopardized or adversely affected as they area at full liberty to make appropriate request to the Cane Commissioner for either further reservation of an area or assignment of an area with a view to have an additional sugarcane in case they bona fide establish that area allotted to them has not been adequate and they are feeling shortage of sugarcane in the continuing crushing season.
40. The aforesaid proposition and the provisions also keeps the sugar factory in bound as every sugar factory wishes to have the maximum reserved area or assigned area and some times their demand may be highly excessive, much more than the quantity of sugarcane actually required. Such contingency can also be checked by taking the estimate to be final for initial declaration of the reserved or assigned area and thereafter, after testing the veracity of the demand of any sugar factory for sugarcane further reservation or assignment can be made by the Cane Commissioner. Such action would neither be in conflict or contravention of the Act nor would be prejudicial to the interest of the sugar factories or cane growers' or Cane Growers' Cooperative Societies.
41. The answer to the first question, therefore, is that the estimate prepared under the order of Cane Commissioner himself under Section 12 of the Act has to be adhered to by the Cane Commissioner at the time of passing an order of allotment under Section 15 (1) of the Act, unless there are exceptional reasons which might intervene or crop up between the period when the estimate has been published and the reservation order is made under Section 15 (1) (not adversely affected the rights and interest of other sugar factories, cane growers and cane Societies etc.) as well as by the sugar factories. The sugar factories cannot raise any grievance against the estimate so prepared at that stage, yet it is always open to the Cane Commissioner to allot more reserved area or assign further area if he is satisfied about the necessity of providing more sugarcane to any factory, during the crushing season. in accordance with the observations made above, in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules.
Question No. 2 :
(ii) Whether there can be an order of Joint purchase of sugarcane in favour of two or more sugar factories in respect of one reserved area?
42. So far the question of Joint purchase by two or more than two sugar factories with respect to one reserved area is concerned, it is to be noticed that the Act has been promulgated for the purpose of smooth functioning of the sugar mills so as to give them an opportunity of having a reasonable quantity of sugarcane throughout the crushing season which supply should not be marred by any unhealthy competition and cause of exploitation either by the cane growers or by the Cane Growers' Cooperative Societies or by the sugar factory in the vicinity or otherwise. The sugar factories are bound to take the sugarcane from their own reserved area or assigned area and likewise cane growers/Cane Growers' Cooperative Societies are equally bound to supply the sugarcane to such sugar factories. The question of Joint purchase by two or more than two sugar factories from one reserved area cannot be in consonance with the scheme and object of the Act. In other words, the Act and the Rules, do not envisage reservation or assignment, one particular area, in favour of two or more sugar factories.
43. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in a situation where one reserved area is reserved for the benefit of two or more than two sugar factories, that would be a case of permission to the cane growers to sell their sugarcane to the sugar factory of their choice, namely, the willing cane growers can sell their sugarcane to any one of the sugar factory. Much stress has been laid upon the provisions of Section 13 of the General Clauses Act to emphasize that phraseology used in Section 15(1) shall hold good for number of factories on the strength that 'singular includes plural'. It has also been argued that instances are no less in number in the last several years where such orders have been consistently passed by the Cane Commissioner permitting the willing cane growers' to sell their sugarcane to sugar factory of their choice and therefore, it is to be presumed that such order of Joint Purchase can be passed by the Cane Commissioner.
44. Section 15 provides for declaration of reserved area or assigned area which reservation or assignment has to be done in relation to a particular factory. The words in sub-section (1) of Section 15 namely '......after consulting the Factory and Cane Growers' Cooperative Society in the manner to be prescribed' the Cane Commissioner shall reserve any area or assign any area for the purpose of supply of sugarcane to a sugar factory would not mean that wherever the word factory, cane growers and Cane Growers' Cooperative Society has been used is to be read in plural. In sub-section (2) of Section 15, it has again been provided that where any area has been declared 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 a factory. Likewise in subsection (3) of Section 15. It has been provided that 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 a factory, as may be determined by the Cane Commissioner. Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 15 deals with the quantity of the sugarcane available in the reserved area or assigned area as the case may be and cast a duty and obligation upon such sugar factory to whom the area has been reserved or assigned to purchase the sugarcane from the cane growers of that area which is offered for sale to the factory. In case the liberty is given to the cane growers to sell any quantity of sugarcane to any sugar factory in a case where the area has been reserved or assigned to two sugar factories or more than two sugar factories, the purpose and the meaning of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 15 would be defeated.
45. The power of the Cane Commissioner to cancel the area of reservation or assignment of an area or alter the boundaries of reserved or assigned area also supports the view that in case of any necessity to allot existing, one reserved area or assigned area to two or more than two sugar factories the same can be done by altering the boundaries. The alteration of boundaries would necessarily mean the exclusive privilege of a particular sugar factory of getting the supply from the area so demarcated and not to two or more than two sugar factories. Section 16 also supports the said premises.
46. Rule 22 also speaks for reservation and assignment of a reserved area to 'a factory' and determination of the quantity of cane to be purchased by the factory under Section 15. Besides this under the provisions of U. P. Sugarcane (Supply and Purchase) Order. 1954, an agreement has to be entered into. An agreement with respect to offer by a cane grower or Cane Growers' Cooperative Societies from a reserved area has to be executed in Form-A to the Appendix attached to the Act for achieving the main object and purpose of continuous sugarcane supply to the sugar factory without there being any chance of exploitation and unhealthy competition between the cane growers and the Cane Growers' Cooperative Societies or inter-se producers of sugar, the reservation and assignment of an area has to be done in a manner which protects the interest of all the parties and gives a reasonable return of their investment to the sugar factories permitting the units to run economically and also securing the interest of the cane growers and their societies. The scheme, therefore, postulates for reservation and assignment of an area to one factory at a time and if one particular area is permitted to be occupied by two or more factories for the purchase and sale of sugarcane by willing cane growers the same may lead to various complications and inequitable distribution of sugarcane.
47. It is not that in case during the crushing season, one sugar factory requires more sugarcane, the same cannot be made available to it by the Cane Commissioner. As already said, the scheme of the Act gives ample power to the Cane Commissioner to change or alter the area during the season to meet the exigency of the situation. It is always obligatory upon the authorities to ascertain whether the circumstances rests for allowing more reserved area and making an assignment in favour of sugar factory or not, for meeting the requirement of the Sugar factory. If some part of the reserved or assigned area of one sugar factory is to be allotted to another sugar factory also, then the same can be done, by the Cane Commissioner, only by altering the boundaries, i.e. by demarcating the exclusive area for each sugar factory.
48. The conclusion, therefore, is that a harmonious construction of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and Order. 1954 and in line with the aim and object of the Act, there cannot be an order permitting the joint purchase by two or more than two sugar factories in a particular reserved and assigned area and consequently, there cannot be an order for willing cane growers, to sell the sugarcane to any factory of their choice in such area. In case the necessity is felt and exigencies so demand that two or more than two factories should be permitted to lift the sugarcane from one reserved or assigned area. the Cane Commissioner would be obliged to demarcate the reserved or assigned area for each sugar factory.
49. In Writ Petition No. 325 (MS) of 2000, the Cane Commissioner by means of reservation order dated 9.11.1999 reserved the area or centres, namely. Chandradeep Ghat and Barhni Chafa in favour of Babhnan Sugar Mills. Later on. by means of order dated November 17, 1999, the Cane Commissioner modified the said order and passed an order of joint purchase of sugarcane by both the factories in the foresaid centres. It may be noticed that Barhni Chafa is a new cane purchase centre which has been opened only last year and was carved out as a new cane centre from the existing centre Chandradeep Ghat, The respective contentions of the two sugar mills before this Court are that the aforesaid two cane centres, namely, Chandradeep Ghat and Barhni Chafa should have been allotted to them.
50. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed a proposal for crushing season 1999-2000 and had made a demand for cane centre Chandradeep Ghat and Barhni Chafa alleging therein that cane centre Chandradeep Ghat has already been in the reserved area of the petitioner and Barhni Chafa is a centre which has come into existence by bifurcating cane centre Chandradeep Ghat. A reservation meeting was held in Lucknow on 22.9.1999, in which the Cane Growers Society represented by District Cane Officer was present who expressed desire to make their supplies to the petitioner. When the reservation order was passed it was found that Chandradeep Ghat and Barhni Chafa has been reserved in favour of Babhnan Sugar Factory. The petitioner has further alleged that they have a crushing capacity of 2500 TCD for the crushing season 1999-2000 and have a requirement of 32 lacs quintals of sugarcane according to the petitioner's own assessment whereas the District Cane Officer has assessed the need of the petitioner as 40 lacs quintals whereas it is expected to receive only 15.80 lacs quintals sugarcane.
51. Aggrieved by the reservation order passed by the Cane Commissioner, the petitioner filed an appeal and placed reliance upon the recommendation of the District Cane Officer. District Gonda that the Chandradeep Ghat has been in the reserved area of the petitioner for the last more than one decade, and therefore, this cane centre should be reserved for the petitioner mill for the current season. In the previous season Babhnan Sugar Mill obtained an order of willing cane growers i.e. of joint purchase by both the sugar factories. It is also a matter of record that in the previous crushing season 1998-99 cane centre Barhni Chafa was reserved to the petitioner but later on the State Government in appeal gave that centre to Babhnan Sugar Mill against which order the writ petition filed by the petitioner is pending. On the order of joint purchase passed on 17.11.1999 Babhnan Sugar Mill also filed an appeal.
52. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the State Government is not in consonance with the law and view taken by the State Government that there cannot be an order of joint purchase with respect to particular area or assigned area under Section 15 of the Act, cannot be sustained. He has further submitted that while allowing the appeal in favour of Babhnan Sugar Mill the State Government has not taken into consideration the Mandatory ingredients as provided under Rule 22 of the Rules and simply on the basis of one factor namely the distance has deprived the petitioner from concerned cane centre by reserving the same in favour of Babhnan Sugar Mills.
53. So far the argument that the view taken by the State Government that there cannot be an order of joint purchase. I have already expressed my views in the earlier part of the judgment and need not repeat the same. I, therefore, hold that there is no illegality in the order of the State Government wherein it has recorded a finding that there cannot be any order of Joint Purchase under Section 15 of the Act. The order of Joint Purchase could not have been upheld by the State Government, as admittedly it did not meet the requirement of affording opportunity to all parties concerned before the order of reservation dated 9.11.1999 was modified by the Cane Commissioner. All the factors which are necessarily to be considered including the views of the Cane Growers Cooperative Societies and view point of the concerned sugar mill in whose favour the reservation order already existed were not taken into consideration nor any reasons have been indicated in the order as to why and under what circumstances the order of joint purchase has been passed.
54. Since I have already found that there cannot be an order of Joint Purchase in favour of two or more than two sugar factories and it is only in the special circumstances and in exigency prevailing during the crushing season that the same area of reservation or assigned area can be demarcated by the Cane Commissioner in favour of one or the other sugar factory, in accordance with Sections 15 and 16 of the Act, I uphold that part of the order by means of which the State Government has set aside the order of Joint Purchase passed by the Cane Commissioner.
55. The State Government in appeal exercises the same powers which are exercised by the Cane Commissioner while making a declaration with respect to reserved or assigned area. It is Incumbent upon the authorities to take into consideration besides other relevant factors, guidelines, enumerated in Rule 22 of the Rules. It goes without saying that guidelines enumerated in Rule 22 are not exhaustive but are only enumerative which necessarily have to be taken into consideration by the Cane Commissioner for achieving the very goal of the Act, i.e., the regular supply of the reasonable quantity of sugarcane to sugar factory in such a manner so as to permit the reasonable return of their investment and to continue smooth production of sugar during the entire crushing season and on the other hand to protect the competitive interest of the sugar factories inter-se and also the interest of the cane growers and the Cane Growers' Cooperative Societies etc.
56. Rule 22 makes it clear that in reserving an area, the Cane Commissioner may take into consideration the distance of the area from the sugar factory, facilities for transport of cane from the area, the quantity of cane supplied from the area to the factory in previous year. previous reservation and assignment order, the quantity of cane to be crushed in the factory and the arrangements made by the factory in previous years for payment of purchase tax. cane price Commission and and the views of the Cane Growers' Cooperative Societies of the area, efforts made by the factory in developing the reserved or assigned area.
57. While making reservation or assignment, the Cane Commissioner has to apply his mind over these guidelines and should not be swayed by a single factor alone. There may be cases where a balance has to be made between the different claims and for equitable distribution of sugarcane on the one hand and on the other hand the safeguarding of Inter-se interest of the sugar factories and the cane growers and Cane Societies. The Cane Commissioner in such circumstances would have to take into consideration various factors given under Rule 22. It is a matter of concern that despite orders having been passed in several writ petitions that the Cane Commissioner while passing a reservation or assignment order shall take into consideration the factors enumerated in Rule 22, the orders of reservation do not indicate that any such effort is genuinely made nor the State counsel has been able to produce any record indicating that such an exercise has been done by the Cane Commissioner. It is only a presumption that since the meeting of the cane growers of the Cooperative Societies has taken place and the representative of sugar factories have also participated in the meeting, the Cane Commissioner has passed the order keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 22. It would be better that the Cane Commissioner maintains such a record and when a challenge is made the same is produced before the Court justifying the order of reservation. The State Government also is equally obliged to consider the provisions of Rule 22 and other relevant factors while hearing the appeal and is not supposed to be swayed by a single factor without disclosing its mind as to why it should outweigh the other factors required to be considered. The State Government while deciding the appeal has considered only one factor namely the distance of the Centre in question from two sugar mills. The order indicates that the State Government has not addressed at all on other pleas and contentions raised by the parties neither has recorded any finding keeping in mind the guidelines enumerated in Rule 22 of the Rules.
58. In the instant case, various pleas have been raised by the petitioner in support of the claim of centres for reserved area, namely, that the centres in question were earlier reserved to them and that they have a crushing capacity of 2500 TCD. etc. whereas the Babhnan Sugar Mills have refuted the pleas raised by the petitioner and have asserted that this centre was in the reserved area of the erstwhile owners and since for certain period the mills remained under the Management of the Central Government under Sugar Undertaking (Taking over of Management) Act, 1977 and the custodian managed it, the custodian could not run the mill properly so it was given to the owners who sold it to the present opposite party No. 3. During management of the mill by the custodian the said Chandradeep Ghat cane centre was temporarily assigned to the petitioner mill although it remained in the reserved area of Babhnan Sugar Mill and the petitioner mill purchased cane from 1984-85. The said cane centre is still in the demarcated reserved area of opposite party No. 3 sugar mill. The petitioner now wants to grab the aforesaid area. The petitioner taking advantage of this assignment wants to have this centre and despite several protest by Babhnan Sugar Mills, it was again assigned in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 9.11.1999 which compelled the Babhnan Sugar Mill to file an appeal which was allowed by the State Government and two centres were assigned in favour of Babhnan Sugar Mills. Further assertion has been made that the petitioner was lethargic in the payment of sugarcane price and they were in huge arrears. This fact has been disputed in the rejoinder-affidavit. The Babhnan Sugar Mills also asserted that it has further increased its crushing capacity to 5000 TCD.
59. So far the distance of the cane centres from two sugar mills is concerned, a dispute has been raised regarding the same also. The State Government also found that there are conflicting certificates issued by the different authorities with respect to capacity of bridge, existing on river Kuwano regarding the capacity to bear the load of full loaded trucks and trollies of sugarcane.
60. The learned counsel for the respondents tried to Justify the order passed by the State Government by pleading before this Court that all the formalities which are required to be taken into consideration under Rule 22 lay in favour of Babhnan Sugar Mills and there are certain other factors which go against the petitioner mill. The submission was that in view of the fact that the material which have been brought before this Court, there was no necessity of reconsideration of the appeal by the State Government and the fact that the State Government has not mentioned all the pleas and the facts in the order, would not vitiate the order.
61. The alternative argument of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the factors which should be taken into consideration tilted in favour of the respondent sugar factory which also find support from the specific averments made in the counter-affidavit and the documents filed.
62. In the case of Commissioner of Police Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji. ALR 1952 (39) 16 (SC). the Supreme Court observed as follows :
'An attempt was made by referring to the Commissioner's affidavit to show that this was really an order of cancellation made by him and that the order was his order and not that of Government. We are clear that public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to language used in the order itself.'
63. While reiterating the same view, the Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. Chief Election Commissioner. New Delhi and others. (1978) 1 SCC 405. held that when statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be Judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may. by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge get validated by additional grounds later brought out. The Apex Court further went on to say that the 'orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older.'
64. In light of the aforesaid decisions, it is abundantly clear that the order passed by the State Government has to be tested on the reasons given in the order and the language used therein. The efforts on the part of the respondent sugar factory to supplement the order by giving certain facts, in the shape of affidavits would not make the order valid.
65. Apart from this, in my opinion, this Court cannot be substituted as a Court of appeal over the orders passed by the State Government. It is not the finding recorded by the State Government which is to be scrutinized in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution but the manner in which the decision has been taken, has to be seen. It is to be seen as to whether the State Government has applied its mind to the relevant facts and while considering the appeal has given any thought to the guidelines given under Rule 22 or not and other relevant factors.
66. While deciding the appeal the State Government exercises a quasi-judicial function which makes it incumbent upon the State Government to afford an opportunity to the parties concerned and thereafter give reasons for reaching to a particular conclusion. If the Act prescribes certain guidelines, the State Government is bound to consider the same and record reasons for reaching to a particular conclusion. The question raised by the parties counsel before this Court raise various disputed questions of the fact and also raise a challenge to distance of the two sugar mills. The certificate filed by Babhnan Chini Mills issued by an Assistant Engineer of Public Works Department and certificate issued by Block Development Officer, Dumariaganj, filed by the petitioner mills were not found worth reliable by the State Government and, therefore, the State Government on telephone, ordered the District Cane Officer to make a local inspection and submit his report and in pursuance thereof, the District Cane Officer submitted a report on 12.1.2000 wherein he reported that there is pile bridge over Chandradeep Ghat and from the said bridge, the trucks and trollies are passing through.
67. It has been held in the case of U. P. Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others, 1995 HVD 238, 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. It is for the authorities, who are experts in the field, to take into consideration all the factors and after balancing them pass appropriate orders which best subserve the interest of the sugar factory and cane growers.
68. In the aforesaid case, the appellate authority decided the appeal relying upon the distance from the sugar mills and the remaining factors were totally ignored. It was mentioned that it was to be seen as to what is the requirement of Rampur Sugar Factory and Ayodhya Sugar Mills looking to their crushing capacity and the period for which they are likely to run. Similarly no details were given regarding the arrangements made by the two sugar factories, in previous years for the payment of cane price etc.
69. In the present case also. apart from the distance, no other factor has been considered by the State Government although various pleas were raised and various factors should have been considered as per law. I, therefore, find that the order passed by the State Government namely January 7, 2000, deserves to be quashed partly.
70. It is. therefore, held that the order insofar as it upsets the order dated November 17, 1999. permitting joint purchase to both the sugar mills is hereby upheld and the rest of the order passed by the State Government is set aside. The matter is remanded to the State Government for deciding the appeal afresh after taking into consideration, the rival claim of the parties, after affording opportunity to all the parties concerned, keeping in mind the guidelines provided under Rule 22 of the Rules and other relevant factors.
71. The Writ Petition No. 326 (MS) of 2000, the order impugned is the order of the State Government dated 27.1.2000 by means of which the order of joint purchase passed by Cane Commissioner dated 23.12.1999 has been set aside. For the reasons indicated in the judgment. I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the State Government holding that the Cane Commissioner could not have passed an order of Joint purchase and therefore, the view taken by the State Government requires no interference by this Court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
72. In Writ Petition No. 544 (MS) of 2000, the only point argued is as to whether a joint order of purchase of sugarcane. can be passed by the Cane Commissioner in respect of one reserved area or not. I have already given my reasons while deciding the Writ Petition Nos. 325 and 326 (MS) of 2000 and for the same reasons this petition also lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
73. In result the Writ Petition No. 325 (MS) of 2000. is partly allowed and the matter is remanded to the State Government to decide the appeal afresh expeditiously in the light of the observations made in the Judgment and the Writ Petition No. 326 (MS) of 2000, stands dismissed.The Writ Petition No. 544 (MS) of2000, is also dismissed. No order asto costs.