Judgment:
Vineet Saran, J.
1. Heard Sri Vivek Chaudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, learned Additional Advocate General on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 and Sri Yashwant Varma, assisted by Ms. Rohma Hameed on behalf of contesting respondent No. 3. Sri R.D. Khare has accepted notice for respondent No. 4 and Sri Atul Mehra for respondent No. 5. Counter affidavit on behalf of contesting respondent No. 3 has been filed, to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed today. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
2. By the cane reservation order dated 15.10.2005 for the crushing season 2005-06, the three centres in dispute, namely, Nanhera-A, Nanhera-B and Sultanpur were reserved in favour of respondent No. 4, Amroha unit of the State Sugar Corporation, but were assigned in favour of the petitioner Dewan Sugar Mill. Aggrieved by the said order of assignment, the respondent No. 3, Uppar Gangej Sugar Mill and the respondent No. 4, Amroha Unit of the State Sugar Corporation filed two separate Appeals No. 5/141/05 and 5/156/05 respectively. By the impugned order dated 18.1.2006 the appeal of respondent No. 3 has been decided whereby the three centres which were assigned in favour of the petitioner have now been assigned in favour of respondent No. 3. It is admitted to the parties that the appeal of respondent No. 4 is still pending decision.
3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though the appeal of the respondent No. 4, which is also with regard to the same three centres, is still pending, the appeal of respondent No. 3 has been decided which ought not to have been done as both the appeals should have been heard and decided together. It has further been submitted that although the case of the petitioner before the appellate authority has been noted in the impugned order but has not been considered by the said authority before assigning the three centres in question in favour of respondent No. 3. It has lastly been submitted that the petitioner has shortage of sugarcane and considering the same, the Cane Commissioner had assigned the three centres in favour of the petitioner Mill, which should not have been interfered with by the appellate authority.
4. Sri Yashwant Varma, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 3 has, however, submitted that the area reserved in favour of respondent No. 3 has been reduced substantially over the last few years, because of which their sugar mill is facing grave shortage of sugarcane. It has further been submitted that in the past two years, the petitioner-Sugar Mill has purchased much lesser sugarcane than their estimated requirement, as in the crushing season 2003-04 the estimated requirement of the petitioner mill was 81 lacs quintal whereas they were able to purchase only 40.58 lacs quintal sugarcane and further for the crushing season 2004-05, as against the estimated requirement of 99 lacs quintals, the petitioner-Mill could purchase only 49.54 lacs quintals. Thus, Sri Varma contends that the appellate authority was correct in assigning the three centres in favour of the respondent No. 3-Mill, after considering the comparative requirement of both the mills.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, without going into the merits of the contention of the rival parties, considering the fact that when two appeals for the same centres had been filed by two different sugar mills, the appellate authority ought to have decided both the appeals together after considering the merits of the case and the comparative requirement of all the three sugar mills involved, which has not been done in the present case. As such, on this ground alone, the appellate order dated 18.1.2006 passed by the appellate authority deserves to be set aside and is, accordingly, quashed. However, the matter is remanded back to the appellate authority for deciding the said two appeals i.e. Appeal No. 5/141/05 filed by respondent No. 3 and the Appeal No. 5/156/05 filed by respondent No. 4, together, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the said authority. It is further provided that the representatives of the contesting sugar Mills shall appear before the appellate authority on 1.3.2006 at 10:00 A.M. alongwith a certified copy of this order.
6. Accordingly, with the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands allowed.
7. Let a certified copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties within five days on payment of usual charges.