# Abdul Jalil v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 650
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-01
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 23288 of 2020
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abdul-jalil-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46942
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Purchase) Act, 1953 - U.P. Sugarcane
(Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules
(1954), Rule 15, 22 - U.P. Sugarcane
Supply and Purchase Order, 1954 Clauses
3, 4, 5 - Reservation of cane areas - Writ
petition at behest of individual cane
grower
seeking
a
direction
for
the
attachment of his village to a particular
Cane Purchase Centre of his choice - Held
- an individual cane growers have 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 Canegrowers'
Cooperative Society which represents the
cane growers of the area (Para 29)

Dismissed

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

650 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
observations made above, in its true
letter and spirit."

37. We, therefore, while allowing this
petition, direct the Chairman of Uttar Pradesh
Power Corporation Ltd. and Managing Director
of all four Distribution Companies as well as
the Principal Secretary, Energy, Government of
Uttar Pradesh to issue such appropriate circular
in the light of the observations made
hereinabove and the judgment of learned Single
Judge extracted hereinabove, within a period of
three months. The Chairman of the U.P. Power
Corporation Ltd. as well as Principal Secretary
Energy shall file an affidavit in compliance of
this direction and the matter shall be listed after
three months before the appropriate Bench to
ensure compliance thereof.

38. The learned Standing Counsel shall
communicate this decision to the concerned
Secretary for compliance.

39. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed.

40. No order as to costs.
----------
(2021)03ILR A650
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-C No. 23288 of 2020

Abdul Jalil ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chetan Chatterjee

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ravindra Singh

U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and
Purchase) Act, 1953 - U.P. Sugarcane
(Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules
(1954), Rule 15, 22 - U.P. Sugarcane
Supply and Purchase Order, 1954 Clauses
3, 4, 5 - Reservation of cane areas - Writ
petition at behest of individual cane
grower
seeking
a
direction
for
the
attachment of his village to a particular
Cane Purchase Centre of his choice - Held
- an individual cane growers have 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 Canegrowers'
Cooperative Society which represents the
cane growers of the area (Para 29)

Dismissed

List of Cases cited:-

1. Satnam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors WritC
No.2075 of 2014, decided on 15.01.2014

2. Dharam Veer Singh & Ors Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors
PIL
No.1081
of
2013,
decided
on
09.01.2013

3. Akram Khan & Anr Vs State of U.P. & Ors
2019 (12) ADJ 417 (DB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar
Srivastava, J.)

1. Present writ petition has been filed
praying for the following reliefs:-

"a. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the order
dated 12.04.2019 passed by the respondent
no.3 (Annexure No. 8 to this writ petition).

b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature
of
mandamus
directing
the
3 All. Abdul Jalil Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
651
respondent
no.2
to
decide
the
representation dated 05.11.2019 submitted
by the petitioner as per Rule 5(5) of U.P.
Sugarcane Supply and Purchase Order,
1954 (Annexure No.9 to this writ petition)
in accordance with law.

c. Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature
of
mandamus
directing
the
respondent no.2 to assign the collection
center of sugarcane of the petitioner as it
was prior to year 2018-19 to 4/Islam Nagar
III instead of 3/Chaparchidi, Saharanpur
Cane Circle, District Saharanpur. .

d. Issue any other writ, order direction
as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to issue
considering the facts and circumstances of
the case."

2. The petitioner claiming himself to
be a resident of Village Ambehata Peer,
District Saharanpur and a sugarcane farmer
having his agricultural land in Village
Manakpur, has filed the present writ
petition, principally seeking to raise a
grievance with regard to the attachment of
his cane area to Cane Purchase Centre at
Chaparchidi. In this regard the petitioner
claims to have submitted a representation
dated 05.11.2019 before the District
Sugarcane Officer, Saharanpur. He also
seeks
to
challenge
the
order
dated
12.04.2019 passed by the Deputy Cane
Commissioner, Saharanpur whereunder an
earlier representation filed by the petitioner
and certain other cane growers of the area
with regard to the same grievance has been
decided.

3. Contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that the cane growers of
Village Manakpur have been supplying
their sugarcane in previous years at the
Cane Purchase Centre Islam Nagar bearing
Center Code No.4/Islam Nagar-III and only
during the crushing season 2018-19 they
have been shifted to the Cane Purchase
Centre
No.3/Chaparchidi,
District
Saharanpur. It is submitted that the Cane
Purchase Centre at Chaparchidi is at a
much greater distance than the Cane
Purchase Centre, Islam Nagar causing
inconvenience to the cane growers of
Village Manakpur. Placing reliance on
Clause 5(5) of the U.P. Sugarcane Supply
and Purchase Order, 19541, it is sought to
be contended that the dispute as to whether
a particular system adopted for the
purchase of cane is equitable or not is to be
referred to the Cane Commissioner and
accordingly
the
representation
dated
05.11.2019 submitted by the petitioner may
be decided in terms thereof.

4. Sri Manoj Kumar Kushwaha,
learned counsel for the State-respondents
and Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.4 have raised
an objection to the maintainability of the
writ petition at the behest of an individual
cane grower and they submit that any
grievance in this regard can be raised
through the Cane-growers' Co-operative
Society of the area in question. They
submit that the writ petition filed by the
petitioner claiming himself to be a
sugarcane
grower
of
the
area
is
misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

6. The regulation of supply and
purchase of sugarcane in the State of Uttar
Pradesh is governed in terms of the
provisions contained under the Uttar
Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply
and Purchase) Act, 19532 and the rules
made thereunder namely the Uttar Pradesh
Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and
Purchase) Rules, 19543.
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. 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' Cooperative 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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 Canegrowers' Co-operative Society in the manner
so prescribed.

11. 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.

12. The guidelines which are required
to be followed in reserving 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.

13. The provision with regard to
declaration of reserved and assigned areas 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 subsection (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:
3 All. Abdul Jalil Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
653

(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)."

14. 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' Cooperative 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."

15. 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.

16. 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
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the cane growers and the Cane-growers'
Co-operative Societies.

17. 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.

18. As regards the contention raised
by the learned counsel for the petitioner
based on Clause 5(5) of U.P. Sugarcane
Supply and Purchase Order, 1954, it may
be noticed that the aforementioned Order,
1954 has been notified by the State
Government in exercise of power conferred
by Section 16 of the Act, 1953. The
relevant provisions with regard to purchase
of cane in reserved and assigned areas as
contained under Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the
Order, 1954 are being extracted below:-

"3. Purchase of cane in reserved
area.--(1) The occupier of a factory shall
estimate or cause to be estimated by the 31st
day of the October or such later date in a
crushing season as, on an application being
made to the Cane Commissioner by the
occupier of a factory, may be fixed by the
Cane Commissioner, the quantity of cane
with each grower enrolled in the Growers'
Register and shall on demand submit the
estimate to the Cane Commissioner and the
Collector.

(2) A Cane-grower or a Cane-Grower's
Co-operative Society may within 14 days of
the issue of an order reserving an area for a
factory, offer in Form A of the Appendix, to
supply cane grown in the reserved area, to the
occupier of the factory.

(3) The occupier of the factory for
which an area has been reserved, shall, within
fourteen days of the receipt of the offer enter
into an agreement in Form B or Form C of
the Appendix, with the Cane-grower or the
Cane-grower's Co-operative Society, as the
case may be. in respect of the cane offered:

Provided that any purchase of cane
made before the execution of the prescribed
agreement shall be deemed to have been
made in accordance with such agreement.

(4) The Cane Commissioner may, for
reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the
date for making offers in respect of any
reserved area.

4. Purchase of cane in assigned area.--
(1) The occupier of a factory for which an
area has been assigned, shall within fourteen
days of the order of assignment of the area,
enter into an agreement in Form B or C of the
Appendix, as the case may be, with the Canegrower
or
Cane-Grower's
Co-operative
Society for the purchase from the assigned
area of such quantity of cane as may be fixed
by Cane Commissioner:

Provided that any purchase of cane
made before the execution of the prescribed
agreement shall be deemed to have been
made in accordance with such agreement.

5. General provisions regarding
purchase of cane.--(1) Cane grown in the
reserved or assigned area of a factory shall
not except with the permission of the Cane
Commissioner, be purchased by any person
without the previous issue, at convenient
centers in the said area of requisition slips
and identification cards to the growers by
the occupier of the factory.

(2) Notwithstanding anything in subclause
(1)
requisition
slips
and
identification cards to members of a Canegrower's Co-operative Society shall not be
issued except by such Society.

(3) An occupier of a factory or Canegrower's
Co-operative
Society
shall
3 All. Abdul Jalil Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
655
maintain a record of the identification cards
issued and a daily account of the requisition
slips issued to the growers and returned by
them.

(4) Purchase of cane shall be spread
over the entire crushing season in an
equitable manner and due consideration
shall be given to variety and maturity of
sugarcane:

Provided that this restriction shall not
apply where the quantity of cane purchased
does not exceed one cart load from a cane
grower in a crushing season.

(5) A dispute whether a particular
system adopted for the purchase of cane is
equitable or not, may be referred to the
Cane Commissioner whose decision shall
be final.

(6) No person other than a canegrower or a Cane-grower's Co-operative
Society shall sell cane to the occupier of
factory.

(7) No person shall transfer or abet the
transfer of a requisition slip for the cane of
a grower to another person, with the object
of enabling cane other than that belonging
to the grower for whom the requisition slip
has been issued, to be sold to a factory.

............"

19. Clause 3 of the Order, 1954
provides for purchase of cane in reserved
area and Clause 4 provides for purchase of
cane in assigned area. Clause 5 contains the
general provisions regarding purchase of
cane. In terms of Clause 5(1) it is provided
that cane grown in the reserved or assigned
area shall not except with the permission of
the Cane Commissioner, be purchased by
any person without the previous issue of
requisition slips and identification cards to
the growers by the occupier of the factory.
Sub-clauses (2) and (3) of Clause 5 lay
down
that
requisition
slips
and
identification cards to members of a Canegrowers' Co-operative Society shall not be
issued except by such society and the
records of the same have to be maintained
by the occupier of the factory and also by
the Cane-growers' Co-operative Society.
Clause 5(4) mandates that purchase of cane
shall be spread over the entire crushing
season in an equitable manner and Clause
5(7) lays down that no person shall transfer
or abet the transfer of a requisition slip for
the cane of a grower to another person. Any
dispute as to whether a particular system
adopted for the purchase of cane is
equitable or not, is to be referred to the
Cane Commissioner under Clause 5(5).

20. The order dated 12.04.2019
passed by the Deputy Cane Commissioner
on a representation submitted by the
petitioner and certain other cane growers of
the area by referring to Clause 5(5) of the
Order, 1954 has taken note of the factual
position that the cane growers in question
were residents of Village Ambehata Peer
but as their cane growing areas were in
Village Manakpur the sugarcane produced
by them in Village Manakpur was directed
to be supplied at the Islam Nagar Centre
whereas the sugarcane produced in Village
Ambehata Peer was directed to be supplied
at the Cane Purchase Centre, Chaparchidi.

21. The Deputy Cane Commissioner,
placing reliance on Section 81 of the U.P.
Co-operative Societies Act, 1965, has
stated in his order that the cane growers
being the residents of Village Ambehata
Peer would be entitled for being members
of the Co-operative Society of the said
village and in terms of para 5(v) of the
Sugarcane Bonding and Supply Policy
notified by the Cane Commissioner for the
crushing season 2018-19, their agreements
would be continued from the village where
they were members of the co-operative
656 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
society.
However,
considering
their
difficulties, it was considered equitable to
permit them to supply the sugarcane
produced in Village Manakpur to the Cane
Purchase Centre at Islam Nagar and the
sugarcane produced in Village Ambehata
Peer be supplied to the Sugarcane Purchase
Centre at Chaparchidi.

22. The Order, 1954 which has been
made by the State Government in exercise
of power under Section 16 of the Act, 1953
provides the procedure under which the
purchase of sugarcane in the reserved areas
and in the assigned areas are regulated. It
also lays down the general provisions
regarding purchase of cane in the reserved
or assigned areas.

23. In view of Clause 5 of the Order,
1954 the cane grown in the reserved or
assigned area cannot be purchased by any
person without the previous issue of
requisition slips and identification cards to
the growers by the occupier of the factory
and in case of members of a Cane-growers'
Co-operative Society by such society.
Since the requisition slips are nontransferable and issued by the co-operative
society according to the requirement of
sugarcane the purchase of sugarcane from a
reserved or assigned area is controlled in
terms thereof.

24. The petitioner herein claiming
himself to be a cane grower of the area is
seeking a direction for the attachment of
his village to the Cane Purchase Centre
Islam Nagar in place of the Cane
Purchase Centre Chaparchidi. In effect
the petitioner has sought to raise a
grievance against the orders whereunder
the cane area, which includes the Village
Manakpur, has been declared to be a
reserved or assigned area in terms of the
statutory provisions under the Act, 1953
and the Rules made thereunder.

25. 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.

26. In this regard we may refer to a
judgment of this Court in Satnam Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.4 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."
3 All. Abdul Jalil Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
657

27. Taking a similar view this Court
in its judgment passed in the case in
Dharam Veer Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors.5 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."

28. The aforementioned legal position
has been reiterated in a recent judgment of
this Court in Akram Khan and another v
State of U.P. and 3 others6 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' Cooperative Society.

29.

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.

30. As regards the claim of the
petitioner that his representation dated
05.11.2019 with regard to his grievance
filed before the District Sugarcane Office,
Saharanpur be decided it would be relevant
to take notice of the fact that earlier
representation raising the same grievance
has been considered and decided by a
detailed order dated 12.04.2019 passed by
the
Deputy
Cane
Commissioner,
Saharanpur which is based on consideration
of the factual position and also taking into
account the scheme provided for under the
relevant statutory provisions with regard to
supply of sugarcane at the various cane
centres.

31. No material error or illegality has
been pointed out by the counsel for the
petitioner in the aforesaid order, which may
warrant interference.

32. For all the aforestated reasons, we
are not inclined to entertain the present writ
petition and the same is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
658 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2021)03ILR A658
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MUNISHWAR NATH
BHANDARI, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 23377 of 2020

Vinod Upadhyay ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla, Sri Shashi Nandan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ajit Singh, Sri Sudhanshu Srivastava,
Sri Tarun Agrawal, Sri Ravi Kant

Panchayat Elections - Constitution of
India - Article 243-E - Election delayed
- Due to Covid 19 - extension given by
High Court

In view of Article 243-E of Constitution,
entire program of the Zila Panchayat
election ought to have be completed before
expiry of five years i.e. date 13.01.2016 -
However, in view of situation due to COVID19 Pandemic election of Panchayat delayed
- High Court directed State Government as
well as State Election Commission to
complete all process to hold direct election
of all the Panchayats by 30.04.2021 -
Indirect election to be completed thereafter
within fifteen days i.e. by 15.05.2021 (Para
11)

Disposed Off

(Delivered by Hon'ble Munishwar Nath
Bhandari, J. & Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Pankaj Kumar
Shukla for the petitioner. Sri Raghvendra
Singh, learned Advocate General assisted
by Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, Additional
Advocate General, Sri Manish Goyal,
Additional Advocate General and Sri
Sudhanshu Srivastava, Additional Chief
Standing Counsel have put in appearance
for the State of U.P. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Tarun Agrawal is
present for the State Election Commission.

2. This writ petition has been filed for
the following prayers-:

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus for commanding
the respondents to issue notifications for
holding the election, indicating therein the
entire program of the election positively
before expiry of five years of Zila
Panchayat
i.e.
date
13.01.2016
in
accordance with the provisions of Article
243-E of Constitution of India.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents subject to the fresh election of
Zila
Panchayat
not
to
interfere
in
peacefully functioning by elected body of
Zila Panchayat.

(iii) issue any other writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court deems
fit and proper in the circumstances."

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits
that election of Zila Panchayat was to be
initiated and completed on or before expiry
of the term of the Panchayat. The
respondents have failed to undertake the
process of election to be completed before
the expiry of the term of the Panchayats
and thereby administrators have been
appointed going against the mandate of the
Constitution. A reference of Article 243 (E)
of the Constitution of India for it is being
quoted herein-: