# Akram Khan & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1186
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-28
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 38324 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/akram-khan-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45138
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

and Purchase) Act, 1954 and Rules, 1953
- Sections 12, 15 & 22 - Petitioners-
individual cane grower-seek attachment
of the cane area to another mill-do not
have right -to raise a challenge to the
reservation or assignment of areas to
sugar
factories-Cane
growers'
cooperative society of the area has the
right.

Held, 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'cooperative
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'cooperative
society
which
represents the cane growers of the area. (Para
22)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. State of U.P.& Anr. Vs. Controlling Authority/Dy. Labour Comm. Lucknow & Ors.
1187
----------
(2020)1ILR 1186

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
THE HON'BLE YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 38324 of 2019

Akram Khan & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ajay Kumar

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

A. U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply
and Purchase) Act, 1954 and Rules, 1953
- Sections 12, 15 & 22 - Petitioners-
individual cane grower-seek attachment
of the cane area to another mill-do not
have right -to raise a challenge to the
reservation or assignment of areas to
sugar
factories-Cane
growers'
cooperative society of the area has the
right.

Held, 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'cooperative
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'cooperative
society
which
represents the cane growers of the area. (Para
22)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of cases cited: -

1. Satnam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ C
No.2075 of 2014

2.Dharam Veer Singh & Ors. Vs.State of U.P. &
Ors.- PIL No.1081of 2013

3.Harveer Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & 4
Ors, Writ C No.2201 of 2019

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

1. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the State-respondents and
Sri Revindra Singh, learned counsel for
the fourth respondent.

2. The petitioners herein asserting
themselves to be sugarcane growers who
are residents of Village Nawabganj, Tehsil
Sahaswan, District Budaun have filed the
present writ petition seeking a direction to
the respondents to attach the Zarifnagar
Cane Purchase Centre to D.S.M. Sugar
Mills, Rajpura, District Sambhal for the
convenience of the sugarcane growers in
their village. A further prayer has been
made for a direction to decide their
representation which is stated to have been
submitted before the respondents.

3.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the State-respondents and
Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for
the fourth respondent have raised a
preliminary objection that the writ petition
at the behest of the individual cane grower
is not maintainable and that any grievance
in this regard can be espoused through the
1188 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cane growers' co-operative society of the
area in question. It is submitted that the
writ petition filed by the petitioners
claiming themselves to be sugarcane
growers of the area is misconceived and is
liable to be dismissed.

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

5. The regulation of supply and
purchase of sugarcane in the State of U.P.
is governed in terms of the provisions
contained
under
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and
Purchase) Act, 19531 and the rules made
thereunder namely the Uttar Pradesh
Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and
Purchase) Rules, 19542.

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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' cooperative 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.

9. 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
cane growers' co-operative societies in the
manner so prescribed.

10. 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.
1 All. Akram Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1189

11. The guidelines which are
required to be followed in reserving an
area 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.

12. The provision with regard to
declaration of reserved and assigned area
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 sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the
Cane Commissioner may, after consulting
the
Factory
and
Cane-growers'
Cooperative Society in the manner to be
prescribed:

(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 subsection (1)."

13. 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 Canegrowers' Co-operative 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."
1190 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. 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.

15. 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
of the cane growers and the cane growers'
co-operative societies.

16. 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' cooperative society of the area which in turn
represents the cane growers of the area.

17. The petitioners herein claiming
themselves to be cane growers of the area
are seeking a direction for attachment of
their cane purchase centre to D.S.M. Sugar
Mills in place of another sugar mill
namely Yadu Sugar Mill, Bisauli to which
their cane purchase centre has been
attached for the ongoing crushing season.
In effect the petitioners have sought to
raise a grievance against the orders
declaring the reserved area and the
assigned area of the two sugar mills in
question.

18. 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.

19. In this regard we may refer to a
judgment of this Court in Satnam Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors. 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
1 All. Akram Khan & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1191
espouse the cause of its member cane
growers before the Cane Commissioner,
State Government or in the High Court."

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

21. In a recent judgment of this Court
in Harveer Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. & 4 Ors. the aforementioned legal
position has again been reiterated 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.

22.

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.

23. We are therefore not inclined to
entertain the present writ petition which
has been filed by the petitioners claiming
to be sugarcane growers of the area in their
individual capacities.

24. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1191

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE VIRENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 39769 of 2018
With
Writ C No. 40129 of 2018