Chhote Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

¶1

Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2106 of 2023 Petitioner :- Chhote Lal And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhaskar Singh,Ajai Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶3

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing counsel for the State respondent.

¶4

The petitioners have approached this Court for the following relief:-

¶5

"(A). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 to allot the M/S D.S.M. Sugar Mills, Rajpura, district Sambhal as cane supply and purchase Centre for the petitioner's Village.

¶6

(B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 21.10.2022 and 02.11.2022 in accordance with law in the interest of concerned cane growers."

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners are resident of village Kanksi, Post Silehari, Block Dahgama, Tehsil Sahaswan, District Budaun and they are supplying their sugar cane crops at M/s D.S.M. Sugar Mills, Rajpura District Sambhal from last 14 years, but in the year 2021 respondent no. 2, Cane Commissioner, Lucknow attached the petitioners village to M/s Yadu Sugar Mills Ltd. Sujanpur, Bisauli, District Budaun against the wishes and consent of the cane growers. Now, the main grievance of the petitioners are that they want to change their sugarcane supply centre from M/s Yadu Sugar Mills Ltd. Sujanpur, Bisauli, District Budaun to M/s D.S.M. Sugar Mills, Rajpura District Sambhal for which they have preferred appeal under section 15(4) of the U.P. Sugarcane Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 before the appellate authority which was rejected, thereafter, they have moved representation before respondent no. 2 which is still pending. Aggrieved by the aforesaid inaction of the authority, they have preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievance.

¶8

Learned Standing counsel for the State-respondents has raised preliminary objection to the maintainability of the writ petition at the behest of an individual cane grower and submit that any grievance in this regard can be raised through the Canegrowers' Co-operative Society of the area in question. He also submits that in U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 an elaborate mechanism is provided for

¶9

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. He submits that the writ petition filed by the individual farmers' claiming to change their sugarcane supply centre from M/s Yadu Sugar Mills Ltd. Sujanpur, Bisauli, District Budaun to M/s D.S.M. Sugar Mills, Rajpura District Sambhal is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find substance in the objection raised by learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. The issue that is being raised before us is no more res integra, inasmuch as, this Court has already answered the issue raised, in series of decisions taking the view that individual cane grower cannot approach this Court by filing writ petition and his grievance cannot be permitted to be entertained.

¶11

All the relevant provisions have been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satnaam Vs. State of U.P. through Secy. and 8 others [Writ Petition C No. 2075 of 2014] and after considering the Division Bench decision of this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 1081 of 2013 ( Dharam Veer Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. thru. Secy. and others ) and the order dated 24.02.2012 passed in Writ-C No. 10207 of 2012, Rakesh Chand Gangwar Vs. Cane Commissioner, Lucknow and Ors ., this Court has held as follows:-

¶12

"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."

¶13

In view of above, we decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner. the writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶14

Order Date :- 20.1.2023 Bhanu

¶15

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Chhote Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhote Lal and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anurag Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Asad Noor Sherwani Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Majeedan Begum Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Arjun and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohammad Kausar Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Maa Vaishno Filling Station Rabupura Jhajhar Road and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others