# Kanikram & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 496
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-09-21
- **Case number:** WRIT - C No. 13313 of 2020
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kanikram-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45982
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - U.P. Sugarcane (Regualtion of
Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953-Section 17 &
U.P. Sugarcane (Regualtion of Supply and
Purchase)
Rules,
1954-Rule
45
maintainibility of-petitioners aggrieved due
to non-discharge of legal burden imposed
upon the respondents under the Act 1953-a
person denied or deprived of something to
which one is legally entitled in order to make
one "a person aggrieved"-such person shall
have the locus standi to maintain the writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution.(Para 23)

B. Non-payment of sugarcane supplied to
Sugar Mill-petitioners have a legal right
u/s 17 of the Act 1953 to get payment of
sugarcane supplied to the Sugar Mill
immediately and in any case within 15
days
without
interest-
The
Cane
Commissioner
failed
to
ensure
enforcement of the provisions of Section
17(4) of the Act,1953-even after issuance
of recovery certificate, neither sugar mill
nor
cane
commissioner
ensured
the
payment
to
the
petitioners
as
per
provision of the Act-the occupier of the
factory did not make adequate provisions,
duly evinced by the records of the factory,
prior to purchase of cane-inexplicable
delay in issuance of certificate by the Cane
Commissioner shows indulgence with the
sugar mill-indulgence indicates neglect of
the authorities towards the fundamental
rights
of
the
distraught
farmersconcerned authorities failed to discharge
their statutory obligation.(Para 25 to 35)
The petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,930 of 46,797. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39930 for what follows._

496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
applicable but did not chose to appreciate
its relevance in entirety, as such the finding
arrived is in-curia. Hence, we are not abide
by the same.

20. For the reasons given by us, the
petition for writ is having no merit. Hence,
dismissed.
----------
(2020)09ILR A496
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.09.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

WRIT - C No. 13313 of 2020
&
WRIT - C No. 12843 of 2020
&
WRIT - C No. 13284 of 2020
&
WRIT - C No. 12629 of 2020

Kanikram & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Anoop Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Diptiman Singh, Sri Kartikeya
Saran, Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar'

A. Civil Law - U.P. Sugarcane (Regualtion of
Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953-Section 17 &
U.P. Sugarcane (Regualtion of Supply and
Purchase)
Rules,
1954-Rule
45
maintainibility of-petitioners aggrieved due
to non-discharge of legal burden imposed
upon the respondents under the Act 1953-a
person denied or deprived of something to
which one is legally entitled in order to make
one "a person aggrieved"-such person shall
have the locus standi to maintain the writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution.(Para 23)

B. Non-payment of sugarcane supplied to
Sugar Mill-petitioners have a legal right
u/s 17 of the Act 1953 to get payment of
sugarcane supplied to the Sugar Mill
immediately and in any case within 15
days
without
interest-
The
Cane
Commissioner
failed
to
ensure
enforcement of the provisions of Section
17(4) of the Act,1953-even after issuance
of recovery certificate, neither sugar mill
nor
cane
commissioner
ensured
the
payment
to
the
petitioners
as
per
provision of the Act-the occupier of the
factory did not make adequate provisions,
duly evinced by the records of the factory,
prior to purchase of cane-inexplicable
delay in issuance of certificate by the Cane
Commissioner shows indulgence with the
sugar mill-indulgence indicates neglect of
the authorities towards the fundamental
rights
of
the
distraught
farmersconcerned authorities failed to discharge
their statutory obligation.(Para 25 to 35)
The petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Akram Khan & anr. Vs St. Of U.P. & 3 ors.,
WRIT C No. 38324 of 2019

2. Vishambhar Dayal & 5 ors. Vs St. Of U.P. & 5
ors.,WRIT C No. 41791 of 2019

3. Ram Chand & 8 ors. Vs St. Of U.P. & 4 ors.,
WRIT C No. 7166 of 2020

4. Swami Nath & 24 ors. Vs St. Of U.P. & 4 ors.,
WRIT C No. 12762 of 2020

5. Anand Agro Chemical India Ltd. Vs Suresh
Chandra & ors.,(2014) 3 SCC 631

6. Hari Shanker Vs Cane Commr.(2004) ALL LJ
3322

7. Bar Council of Mah. Vs M.V. Dabholkar & ors.
(1975)
2
SCC
702
9 All. Kanikram & Anr.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
497
8. Ghulam Qadir Vs Spl. Tribunal & ors.,(2002) 1
SCC 33,Para 38

9. Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Vs St. Of U.P. & ors.,
CMWP No. 1853 of 2009

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anoop Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioners in WRIT - C No.
- 13313 of 2020, Sri Ram Karan, learned
counsel for the petitioners in WRIT - C
Nos. - 12843 of 2020, 13284 of 2020 and
12629 of 2020, and also heard Sri J.N.
Maurya, learned Chief Standing Counsel
alongwith Sri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned
standing
counsel
for
the
State
-
respondents, Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned
counsel for the Cooperative Cane Society
and Sri M.D. Singh "Shekhar", learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Diptiman
Singh, and Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned
counsel
for
the
respondent
-
Bajaj
Hindustan Sugar Ltd. (Unit - Rudhauli,
District - Basti).

2. With the consent of learned
counsels for the parties, WRIT - C No. -
13313 of 2020 is treated the leading writ
petition and facts thereof are being noted.

3. Today, the State - respondents, the
respondent - Cane Society and the
respondent - Sugar Mill have filed short
counter affidavits all dated 08.9.2020 in
WRIT - C No. - 13313 of 2020. The
respondent no.5 has additionally filed a
first
supplementary
affidavit
dated
10.09.2020 in short counter affidavit. All
these affidavits are taken on record.

Facts

4. The petitioners are cane growers.
They are members of the respondent
Cooperative Cane Society. Their sugar
cane growing area was reserved for supply
of sugarcane to the respondent - Sugar
Mill. They supplied sugarcane to the
respondent - Sugar Mill for the crushing
season
2019-20
(01.10.2019
to
31.03.2020). According to the respondent -
Sugar Mill, the crushing was carried on
upto 23.03.2020. As per details submitted
by
the
respondent
no.2
(Cane
Commissioner)
alongwith
the
counter
affidavit, 28086 farmers supplied sugarcane
to the respondent Sugar Mill but the
respondent Sugar Mill has made payment
whether in full or in part, only to 7,639
cane growers for the period of supply till
01.01.2020. Thus 20,447 cane growers
have not been paid even a single penny by
the respondent Sugar Mill. Although some
correspondence
was
made
by
the
respondent Cane Cooperative Society with
the respondent no.2 Cane Commissioner
but no action was taken by the Cane
Commissioner and he simply issued 3
letters dated 04.02.2020, 19.5.2020 and
13.07.2020 to the respondent Sugar Mill
requesting to ensure hundred percent
payment of sugarcane price to the cane
growers. As per last letter of the Cane
Commissioner
dated
13.07.2020
the
sugarcane purchase payable amount by the
respondent Sugar Mill was Rs.132.5194
crores against which it made payment of
only Rs.18.6035 crores and thus there
remains arrears of Rs.113.9159 crores. The
respondents - Sugar Mill has made
payment of only 14.04% percent out of the
total sugarcane supply amount. When this
court passed an order on 03.09.2020 only
then
the
respondent
no.2
Cane
Commissioner issued a recovery certificate
dated 07.09.2020 reflecting total arrears of
Rs.103.1057 crorers towards sugarcane
price
and
interest
payable
by
the
respondent Sugar Mill to cane growers.
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Section 17 of the U.P. Sugarcane
(Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act
1953 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act
1953") provides for payment of sugarcane
by the Sugar Mill to cane growers within
14 days and for delayed payment an
interest @ 12 % is also payable. The
provisions of Section 17 of the Act 1953
and Rule 45 of the U.P. Sugarcane
(Regulation of Supply and Purchase)
Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Rules 1954") are reproduced below:-

"Section 17. Payment of cane
price. - (1) The occupier of a factory shall
make such provision for speedy payment of
the price of cane purchased by him as may
be prescribed].

(2) Upon the delivery of cane the
occupier of a factory shall be liable to pay
immediately the price of the cane so
supplied, together with all other sums
connected therewith,

(3) Where the person liable
under sub-section (2) is in default in
making the payment of the price for a
period exceeding fifteen days from the
date of delivering, he shall also pay
interest at a rate of 7-1/2 per cent per
annum from the said date of delivering, but
the Cane Commissioner may, in any case,
direct, with the approval of the State
Government, that no interest shall be paid
or be paid at such reduced rate as he may
fix:

[Provided that in relation to
default in payment of price of cane
purchased after the commencement of this
proviso, for the figure '7-1/2 the 'figure 12'
shall be deemed substituted.]

(4) The Cane Commissioner
shall forward to the Collector a certificate
under his signature specifying the amount
of arrears on account of the price of cane
plus interest, if any, due from the occupier
and the Collector, in receipt of such
certificate, shall proceed to recover from
such occupier the amount specified
therein as if it were an arrear of land
revenue.

(5)(a) Without prejudice to the
provisions of the foregoing sub-sections,
where the owner or any other person
having control over the affairs of the
factory or any other person competent in
that behalf enters into an agreement with a
bank under which bank agrees to give
advance to him ["on the security of sugar
or ethanol (directly produced from the
sugarcane juice or B-Heavy molasses)"]
produced or to be produced in the factory,
the said owner or other person shall
provide
in
such
agreement
that
a
[percentage determined by such authority
and in such manner as may be prescribed]
of the total amount of advance shall be set
apart and be available only for repayment
to cane-growers or their co-operative
societies on account of the price of
sugarcane purchased or to be purchased
for the factory during the current crushing
season from those cane-growers or from or
through those societies, and interest
thereon and, such societies commission in
respect thereof.

(b) Every such owner or other
person as aforesaid shall send a copy of
every such agreement to the Collector
within a week from the date on which it is
entered into].

Rule 45 : Payments for cane shall
be made only to the cane grower or his
representative duly authorized by him in
writing to receive payment or to a cane
growers' Co-operative Society :

[Provided that the payment to
the members of cane growers' Cooperative society may be made by the
factory
with
the
mutual
agreement
between the factory and the society. This
9 All. Kanikram & Anr.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
499
remuneration to the factory for the payment
to the members of a cane growers' Cooperative Society shall be determined by
the Cane Commissioner :

Provided further that all arrears of
cane price shall be remitted to the cane
growers' Co-operative Society concerned
within fifteen days of the close of the factory]."

6. Briefly on the facts and legal
provisions as noted above, the petitioners
have filed the present writ petition praying
for a direction in the nature of mandamus
to the Cane Commissioner to direct the
respondent no.5 sugar mill to pay the entire
cane price with interest for the crushing
season 2019 - 2020 and also to direct the
respondent
no.2
to
consider
the
applications of the petitioners which is
submitted in May 2020. The petitioners
have also prayed that any other or further
orders as this Court may deem fit and
proper under the facts and circumstances of
the case, may be issued.

Submissions
on
behalf
of
the
petitioners

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submits as under:-

(i) The purchase and supply of
sugarcane is regulated by the provisions of
the Act 1953 and the Rules 1954. The
petitioners' area was reserved for the
respondent
no.5.
Accordingly,
the
respondent no.5 supplied the sugarcane to
the respondent no.5 with clear stipulation
under the Act 1953 that the respondent
No.5 shall make the payment within 14
days and the delay in payment shall carry
interest @ 12%. But despite various
reminders and persuasion by the petitioners
neither Cane Cooperative Society has taken
any interest to ensure payment of sugarcane
dues of the petitioners nor the respondent
Cane
Commissioner
nor
the
State
Government took any interest to ensure that
the petitioners (poor farmers) may get sale
consideration of their sugarcane supplied to
the respondent no.5 Sugar Mill.

(ii) The respondents are acting in
connivance with each other, with the result
that the petitioners are not getting price of
their sugarcane supplied to the respondent
no.5 under the provisions of the Act 1953
and the Rules 1954.

(iii)
The
conduct
of
the
respondents is not only violative of
provisions of Section 17 of the Act 1953
and the Rule 45 of the Rules 1954 but is
also violative of fundamental rights of the
petitioners guaranteed under Part III of the
Constitution of India.

Submissions on behalf of the State
respondents

8. (i) Sri J.N. Maurya, learned Chief
Standing
Counsel,
submits
that
the
respondent no.2 has disclosed entire details
in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 of the short
counter affidavit which indicates that the
respondent no.5 has committed serious
lapses in making payment of sugarcane to
cane
growers
and
consequently,
the
respondent no.2 has issued a recovery
certificate dated 07.09.2020. The recovery
could not yet be made.

(ii)
The
recovery
certificate
issued by the respondent no.2 shall be
enforced by the Collector and the entire
dues
shall
be
recovered
from
the
respondent no.5.

(iii) The respondent No.5 has not
made any payment to cane growers for
supplies after 02.01.2020.

Submissions
on
behalf
of
the
respondent No.4 (Cane Cooperative
Society
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Learned counsel for the respondent
no.4 has submitted as under:

(i) The respondent no.4 has written
to the respondent no.5 for payment of cane
dues and interest but the respondent no.5 has
not made any payment. The payment of
sugarcane price is made directly by the
respondent no.5 to the cane growers
through ESCROW account (which is a joint
account of the respondent no.5 - Sugar Mill
and the District Cane Officer). An intimation
is sent to the respondent Cane Cooperative
Society when the payment is made. The
respondent Cane Cooperative Society gets
commission only when the payment is made
to cane growers but due to conduct of
respondent no.5 the respondent No.4 is not
getting commission.

(ii) The respondent no.5 is not
making payment of commission to the
respondent no.4 under Rule 49 of the Rules
1954 and thus has defaulted even in
payment of Commission.

(iii) The respondent no.4 has
apprised the Cane Commissioner through
notice dated 13.07.2020 (addressed to the
respondent no.5 and a copy to the Cane
Commissioner) regarding non payment of
cane price to growers but no action has
been taken.

(iv) There is no allegation by the
petitioners against the respondent no.4
Cane Cooperative Society for any lapses on
its part regarding non payment of cane dues
by the respondent no.5 to the cane growers.

Submissions
on
behalf
of
the
respondent No.5 Sugar Mill

10. Sri M.D. Singh 'Shekhar', learned
Senior Advocate, has submitted as under:-

(i) The writ petitions are not
maintainable at the instance of individual
cane growers who have no individual right
to approach the Court for payment of
sugarcane price/dues. Reliance is placed
upon the orders dated 28.11.2019 in WRIT
- C No. - 38324 of 2019 ( Akram Khan
and another Vs. State Of U.P. and 03
Others) (para 6 and 22), order dated
03.01.2020 in WRIT - C No. - 41791 of
2019 (Vishambhar Dayal And 5 Others
Vs. State Of U P And 5 Others ), order
dated 03.03.2020 in WRIT - C No. -7166
of 2020 (Ram Chand And 8 Others Vs.
State Of U.P. And 4 Others), and order
dated 31.8.2020 in WRIT - C No. -12762
of 2020 (Swami Nath And 24 Others Vs.
State Of U.P. And 4 Others).

(ii) The prayer nos. 1 and 2 can
not be granted to the petitioners in view of
the judgments and orders of this Court
referred above.

(iii)
The
Deputy
Cane
Commissioner
wrote
a
letter
dated
24.8.2020 to the respondent no.5 pursuant
to a letter of the Cane Commissioner dated
20.08.2020 for submitting plan for payment
of cane dues and in response thereto the
respondent no.5 has submitted a plan for
payment of cane dues of the farmers to the
tune of 97 crores, till February 2021
(excluding interest). Since the respondent
no.5 has already submitted a plan for
making payment of sugarcane dues of
the crushing season 2019 - 20 by
February 2021, therefore, there is no
occasion for this Court to issue any
direction for payment of recovery of
cane
dues
of
the
petitioners/cane
growers.

(iv) The respondent no.5 has
made payment on 08.9.2020 for sugarcane
purchased till 02.01.2020 and part payment
of sugarcane purchased on 03.01.2020. The
Sugar
Mill
stopped
crushing
since
23.03.2020. Therefore, the respondent no.5
is making effort for payment.
9 All. Kanikram & Anr.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
501

(v) Since recovery certificate has
already been issued by the respondent no.2
against the respondent no.5, therefore, the
writ petition has become infructuous.

(vi) If the respondent no.5 makes
the payment then it may face financial
crisis and may be forced to close the Sugar
Mill.

11. The submissions made by learned
counsels for the parties as aforenoted give
rise to the following Questions for
determination in these writ petitions:-

(i)
Whether
petitioners/cane
growers have locus standi to maintain writ
writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for payment of their
cane dues in terms of the provisions of
Section 17 of the Act 1953 read with Rule
45 of the Rules 1954 ?

(ii) Whether on issuance of
Recovery Certificate dated 07.09. 2020 by
the respondent no.2 against the respondent
no.5 for recovery of cane price and interest,
the writ petitions have become infructuous.
?

(iii) Whether the respondent no.5
even being bound by the provisions of
Section 17 of the Act 1953 and Rules 44
and 45 of the Rules 1954, can withhold or
delay the payment of sugarcane supplied by
the petitioners/cane growers on the ground
that it has submitted a schedule of payment
to the Cane Commissioner to pay the
sugarcane
dues
(except
interest)
by
February 2021, and whether the Cane
Commissioner and authorities have acted in
due discharge of their duties?

Discussion and Findings

Question No. (I)

12. It is undisputed that the
petitioners' sugar cane growing area was
reserved for supply of sugar cane to the
respondent no.5 under Section 15 of the
Act 1953 and accordingly the petitioners
supplied their sugar cane to the respondent
no.5. As per short counter affidavit of the
respondent no.2, 28086 farmers supplied
sugarcane to the respondent No.5 - Sugar
Mill but the respondent has made payment
whether in full or in part, only to 7,639
cane growers for the period of supply till
01.01.2020. Thus, 20,447 cane growers
have not been paid even a single penny by
the respondent No.5 against the supply of
sugarcane. The petitioners cane-growers
have stated in para 12 of the writ petition
that they have no other source of livelihood
and are totally dependent on the sale price
of sugarcane. In paragraphs 9 to 14 the
petitioners have stated that under the Act,
1953 and the Rules 1954, the respondents'
Sugar Mill is bound to pay the sugarcane
price immediately and if it is not paid
within 15 days of the date of supply then
interest also become due and payable to
cane-growers. It has also been stated that
the entire actions of the respondents
regarding non payment of cane dues, are
illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14
of the Constitution of India.

13. In paragraph 6 of the short counter
affidavit, the respondent No.2 has stated as
under:-

"6. That in the crushing season
2019-2020, Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Ltd.
Unit-Rudhauli, District Basti (respondent
no.5)(hereinafter referred to as the sugar
mill) had purchased total 42.23 lakhs
quintal of sugarcane from the cane growers
amounting to Rs.13,251.94 lakhs. The
sugar mill has paid only Rs.3,778.56 lakhs
to the farmers/cane growers towards the
cane price and Rs.9,473.38 is due and
payable to the farmers/cane growers.
502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Since, there was delay in payment of cane
price to the farmers/cane growers by the
sugar mill, an interest of Rs.644.89 lakhs
has been imposed on the outstanding cane
price under Section 17(3) of the U.P.
Sugarcane
(Regulation
Supply
and
Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred
to as U.P. Act No.24 of 1953). It is relevant
to submit here that in the crushing season
2019-20, total 28086 cane growers have
supplied sugarcane to the sugar mills out
of which only 7,639 cane growers have
been paid cane price (fully or partially)
and the remaining 20,447 farmers/cane
growers have not been paid their cane
price. Copy of chart showing the details of
payments of cane price to the farmers/cane
growers by the sugar mill is being annexed
herewith and is marked as Annexure
No.SCA-1 to this short counter affidavit."

14. It has been stated in paragraphs 10
and 11 of the short counter affidavit of the
respondent no.2 that payment of sugar cane
price is made by the sugar mill to the
farmers (cane-growers) under ESCROW
Account Scheme and the outstanding cane
price dues of the farmers of the canegrowers is paid into their bank account
through RTGS/NEFT.

15. The facts as stated in the short
counter affidavit and briefly mentioned
above have not been disputed by the
respondent no.5 in its short counter
affidavit.
Thus,
the
facts
stated
in
paragraph 6 of the short counter affidavit of
the respondent no.2 that a sum of
Rs.94.7338 crores towards cane price and
interest Rs.6.4489 crores is payable to
farmers (cane growers) under Section 17 of
the Act 1952, is undisputed.

16. As per provisions of Section
17(1)/(2) upon the delivery of cane the
occupier of a factory shall be liable to pay
immediately the price of the cane so
supplied, together with all other sums
connected therewith. As per Section 17(3)
of the Act where a person liable under
sub-section (2) is in default in making the
payment of the price for a period
exceeding fifteen days from the date of
delivery, he shall also pay interest at the
rate of 12% per annum. Sub - Section 4
mandates that the Cane Commissioner shall
forward to the Collector a certificate under
his signature specifying the amount of
arrears on account of the price of cane plus
interest, if any, due from the occupier and
the Collector, in receipt of such certificate,
shall proceed to recover from such occupier
the amount specified therein as if it were an
arrear of land revenue. Rule 45 of the Rules
1954
specifically
mandates
that
the
payments for cane shall be made only to
the cane growers or his representative
duly authorized by him in writing to
receive payment or to a cane growers' Cooperative Society. The second proviso to
Rule 45 provides that all arrears of cane
price shall be remitted to the cane growers'
Co-operative Society concerned within
fifteen days of the close of the factory.

17. It has been stated by the respondent
no.2 in his short counter affidavit that payment
of cane price is made to the cane-growers
throw ESCROW Account and the payment is
directly remitted to farmers of the cane
growers through RTGS/NEFT. Thus, it is
clear that under the Act, 1953 and the
Rules 1954 the petitioners have supplied
sugar cane to the respondent no.5 and they
are entitled to receive payment immediately
as per provisions of Section 17 of the Act,
1953.

18. The rights of the petitioners for
immediate
payment
of
sugar
cane
9 All. Kanikram & Anr.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
503
supplied to the respondent no.5 emerges
from the provisions of Section 17 (1)/(2)
of the Act 1953 and in case of none
payment beyond 15 days of the delivery of
sugarcane, the respondent no.2 Cane
Commissioner
is
under
a
statutory
obligation to issue a recovery certificate
and forward it to the Collector for recovery
of cane dues from the Sugar Mill. Thus,
right to receive payment of sugar cane
price and interest, if any, is a statutory
right of cane-growers/farmers under
Section 17 of the Act who supplied
sugarcane to the respondent no.5 as per
reservation order issued by the competent
authority under the Act 1953.

19. In the case of Anand Agro
Chemical India Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chandra
& Ors. 2014 (3) SCC 631 (paragraphs 2, 3,
4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14) Hon'ble Supreme
Court while considering the provisions of
Section 17 of the Act 1953 held as under:-

"2. The facts in nutshell are as
follows. Respondents 1 to 3 supplied
sugarcane to the sugar mill of the
appellant in the year 2007-08, for which
the appellant has not paid the price in
spite of several representations made by
the respondents 1 to 3 herein. This led to
the filing of a Writ Petition in Writ-C
no.14936 of 2013 by respondents 1 to 3
seeking for issuance of the Writ of
Mandamus directing the appellant herein
to release the sugarcane price to them.
The Division Bench of the High Court
after hearing both the sides directed the
District Magistrate, Hathras to take
immediate action against the Directors
and occupiers of the appellant sugar mill
against whom several orders have been
passed
under
the
U.P.
Sugarcane
(Regulation and Supply) Act, 1913 and it
further observed in the order that the
District Magistrate may in exercise of his
powers cause arrest of the Directors and
occupiers of the sugar mill to recover the
dues and in the event of such arrest, they
will not be released until they have paid
the entire amount due against them.

3.The
appellant
sugar
mill
aggrieved by the said order preferred a
Special
Leave
Petition
in
SLP(C)
no.16633 of 2013 and this Court by order
dated 1.5.2013 dismissed the petition by
observing thus :-

"2. We have heard Shri Sanjay
Parikh, learned counsel for the appellant
and perused the record.

3. A reading of the order under
challenge shows that the appellant has not
paid Rs.16.12 crores to the farmers for the
crushing year 2005-06 to 2009-10, which
includes the price of sugarcane, the cane
development commission and the interest.
It is also borne out from the record that
vide letter dated 24.11.2012, the Director
of the appellant had assured the Cane
Commissioner that the company will pay
Rs.160 lacs as the price of the cane within
two weeks and an amount of Rs.700 lacs in
installments, the first of which will be paid
on 15.01.2013, but the company did not
fulfill its assurance.

4. In the above backdrop, it is not
possible to find any fault with the direction
given by the Division Bench of the High
Court
and
there
is
absolutely
no
justification for this Court's interference
with the impugned order.

The special leave petition is
accordingly dismissed........."

4. Thereafter, the appellantsugar mill filed an application in the
pending Writ Petition in the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad seeking for stay
of arrest of the Directors pursuant to the
order dated 26.4.2013 and the Division
Bench of the High Court after hearing both
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sides and after referring to the earlier
orders held that no modification/vacation
of the order dated 26.4.2013 is required
and, accordingly, rejected the prayer of
stay of arrest. Challenging the said order
the appellant-sugar mill has preferred the
present appeal.

8. Section 17 of the U.P. Sugarcane
(Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act,
1953 stipulates that the occupier of the sugar -
factory shall make speedy payment of cane
price and in the event of default, sub-Section
(4) stipulates that the Cane Commissioner
shall forward to the Collector a certificate
specifying the amount of arrears of the cane
price due from the occupier and the Collector
shall proceed to recover the said amount from
such occupier as if it were an arrear of land
revenue. Section 170 of the Uttar Pradesh
Revenue Code, 2006 prescribes the process
for recovery of arrears of land revenue,
wherein it is mentioned that it may be
recovered by anyone or more of the processes
mentioned therein which includes by arrest
and detention of the defaulter and attachment
and sale of his movable property.

9. The Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court in its order dated
26.4.2013
has
directed
the
District
Magistrate, Hathras, namely, the Collector
to take immediate action against the
Directors and occupiers of the appellantsugar mill against whom several orders
have
been
passed
under
the
U.P.
Sugarcane (Regulation and Supply) Act,
1913 and this Court has confirmed the said
order. The Division Bench in the present
application considered the plea of the
appellant for the stay of arrest and after
hearing both sides rejected the said plea by
the impugned order and we find no error in
it.

10. We say so, firstly, because the
order dated 26.4.2013 passed by the
Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court directing the District Magistrate to
take immediate action against the Directors
of the sugar mill has already been affirmed
by this Court in appeal. The question
whether or not one of the Directors who is
said to be 65 years old could be arrested as
a defaulter and committed to prison under
Section 171 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue
Code, 2006, could and indeed ought to
have been raised by the appellants either
before the High Court or before this Court
in appeal preferred against the order
passed by the High Court. No such
contention was, however, urged at that
stage.

11.
Secondly,
because
the
company and its Directors have not made
their promises good by paying even the
amounts which they had offered to pay. A
plain reading of order dated 1.5.2013
passed by this Court in Anand Agro
Chemical India Ltd. Vs. Suresh Chandra
SLP (C) No.16633 of 2013 extracted above
would show that the company and its
Directors had assured the Commissioner
that they would pay Rs.160 lacs towards
price of sugarcane within two weeks
besides an amount of Rs.700 lacs to be paid
in
installments,
the
first
of
which
installment was to be paid on 15.5.2013.
No such payment was, however, made by
the company and its Directors. That apart,
the statement made at the bar on 7.10.2013
by Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned senior
counsel, for the appellant that the Directors
would pay Rs.4.55 crores is also sought to
be withdrawn on the ground that the same
was made under a mistake. It is evident that
the company and its Directors have been
despite promises made on their behalf
committing breach of such assurances on
one pretext or the other.

12. Thirdly, because there is
nothing before us to suggest that the
company and its Directors are incapable
9 All. Kanikram & Anr.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
505
of raising funds for liquidating the
outstanding liability towards dues payable
to the farmers. Simply because the sugar
factory has been attached, is no reason for
us to assume that the company or its
Directors are in any financial distress
thereby disabling them from making the
payments recoverable from them. The fact
situation in the present case is, therefore,
completely different from that in Jolly
George Varghese case (1980) 2 SCC 360
relied upon by Mr. Ram Jethmalani.

13. In the light of the above, we
see no compelling reason for us to interfere
with the order passed by the High Court in
exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction.
We regret to say that the amounts due to
the farmers towards price of the sugarcane
and incidentals remains to be paid to them
for several years in the past thereby
accumulating huge liability against the
company. That is not a happy situation nor
can repeated invocation of the process of
law by the appellant be a remedy for it.

14. The appeal is devoid of merit
and is accordingly dismissed."

20. Thus, in the case of Anand Agro
Chemical India Ltd. (supra) Hon'ble
Supreme Court clearly held that Section 17
of the Act 1953 stipulates that the occupier
of the sugar - factory shall make speedy
payment of cane price and in the event of
default, sub-Section (4) stipulates that the
Cane Commissioner shall forward to the
Collector a certificate specifying the
amount of arrears of the cane price due
from the occupier and the Collector shall
proceed to recover the said amount from
such occupier as if it were an arrear of land
revenue.

21. The aforesaid judgment in the
case of Anand Agro Chemical India Ltd.
(supra) arose from the judgment of this
Court dated 31.07.2013 in Writ Petition
No.14936 of 2013 which was filed by canegrowers and was entertained by this Court.

22. In the case of Hari Shanker Vs.
Cane Commissioner 2004 ALL LJ 3322
(All - D.B.) this Court considered the plight
of poor farmers/cane growers and observed
as under :

"Before
parting
it
must
be
mentioned that it is deeply regrettable that
economically strong sugar mills resort to
such
hyper
technical
arguments
for
defeating just claims of poor cultivators, by
questioning the jurisdiction of empowered
authorities, or the right of the poor
cultivators to prefer the claim, or by
raising artificial pleas of violation of
natural justice. Very often the co-operative
society which receives commission from the
factory sides with the powerful sugar mill,
leaving its poor farmer members high and
dry."

23. The petitioners are aggrieved due
to non discharge of legal burden imposed
upon
the
respondents
including
the
respondent no.5, under the Act 1953. In the
case of Bar Council of Maharashtra Vs.
M.V. Dabholkar and others 1975 (2)
SCC 702 (para 28) a Constitution Bench
of Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the
meaning of the words "person aggrieved"
and held that the meaning of the words "a
person aggrieved" may vary according to
the context of the statute. One of the
meanings is that a person will be held to be
aggrieved by a decision if that decision is
materially adverse to him. Normally, one is
required to establish that one has been
denied or deprived of something to which
one is legally entitled in order to make one
"a person aggrieved". Again a person is
aggrieved if a legal burden is imposed on
506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
him. Thus, in the light of the discussion
made
above,
the
petitioners
are
"aggrieved persons"

24. The rights under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India can be enforced
only by an "aggrieved person" except in
cases where the writ prayed is for habeas
corpus or quo-warranto. Another exception
in the general rule is filing of a writ petition
in public interest. The existence of legal
right of the petitioners which is alleged
to have been violated, is the foundation
for invoking the jurisdiction of the High
Court
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India. If a person
approaching the Court can satisfy that the
impugned action is likely to affect
adversely his right which is shown to be
having source in some statutory provisions,
the writ petition filed by such person shall
be maintainable and such person shall have
the locus standi to maintain the writ
petition. Similar view has been taken by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Ghulam Qadir Vs. Special Tribunal and
others (2002) 1 SCC 33 (Para 38).

25. We have found that the petitioners
have a legal right under Section 17 of the
Act 1953 to get payment of sugarcane
supplied
to
the
respondent
no.5
immediately and in any case within 15 days
without interest. The respondent No.2 has
failed to ensure enforcement of the
provisions of sub Section 4 of Section 17 of
the Act 1953 until this Court passed an
order dated 03.09.2020. Even after issuance
of recovery certificate, neither recovery of
long over due payment under Section 17 of
the Act has been made by the respondent
no.5 to the petitioners nor the respondent
no.2 could ensure the payment to the
petitioners as per provisions of the Act and
the Rules. Under the circumstances, the
submissions of learned Senior Advocate
appearing for the respondent no.5 that the
petitioners have no locus standi or the writ
petition is not maintainable, is wholly
devoid of merit and, therefore, it can not be
accepted. The petitioners have legally
protected
and
judicially
enforceable
subsisting right to ask for mandamus for
payment under Section 17 of the Act, 1953.
Similar writ petition No.14936 of 2013
decided on 31.07.2013 was entertained by
this Court and the judgment was affirmed
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Anand Agro Chemical India Ltd. (supra).
Consequently, we hold that the petitioners
have locus standi and the writ petitions are
maintainable.

Question Nos. ii & iii

26. As per own case of the respondent
no.5 and the stand taken by the respondent
no.2 in their short counter affidavit, no
payment to cane growers/petitioners for
sugarcane supply/delivery after 02.01.2020,
has been made by the respondent no.5. It is
also admitted to the parties that the
respondent
no.5
received
supply
of
sugarcane from 28086 farmers but made
payment whether in full or in part only to
7,639 cane-growers for the period of supply
till 01.01.2020. Thus, 20447 cane-growers
have not been paid any amount by the
respondent
no.5
against
supply
of
sugarcane. As per provisions of Section
17(1)/(2) of the Act 1953 payments were
required to be made immediately to canegrowers and delay in payment beyond 14
days of supply/delivery, attracts interest @
12% payable to farmers/cane-growers. SubSection 4 of Section 17 of the Act casts a
statutory duty upon the respondent no.2
Cane Commissioner to issue and forward a
recovery certificate to the Collector for
recovery of sugarcane dues of the cane-
9 All. Kanikram & Anr.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
507
growers/farmers, as arrears of land revenue.
The payment was due and payable by the
respondent no.5 to the petitioners even
before the start of lock down period due to
COVID 19 Pandemic. It has not been
disputed by the respondents that the
petitioners
cane-growers
earned
their
livelihood and maintain their families from
the consideration received on supply of
sugarcane to Sugar Mil/respondent No.5.

27. Thus, non payment of sugarcane
price
by
the
respondent
no.5
and
delay/laches by the respondent no.2 in
issuing recovery certificate against the
respondent no.5, clearly indicates breach of
provisions of Sub-Sections 1, 2 and 3 of
Section 17 by the respondent no.5 and subSection 4 of Section 17 by the respondent
no.2. The respondent no.5, who is giant
manufacturer in the field of sugar and its
by-products; has not taken even Cash
Credit Limit (CCL) from any Bank. No
material has been placed on record of the
writ petition that the respondent no.5 Sugar
Mill or its directors or occupier are unable
to
pay
sugar
cane
dues
to
the
petitioners/cane-growers or they have no
resources to pay the sugar cane dues. Under
the
circumstances,
mere
issuance
of
recovery certificate by the respondent no.2
on 07.09.2020 does not give a ground to
the respondent no.5 to say that writ petition
has become infructuous due to issuance of
recovery certificate. Unless the cane dues
pursuant
to
recovery
certificate
are
recovered, the rights of the petitioners
under Section 17 of the Act 1953 shall not
be satisfied. No material has been placed
by the respondent No.1 or 2 that any action
pursuant to the recovery certificate dated
07.09.2020 has been taken by the Collector,
Basti. Under the circumstances, it can not
be said that the writ petition has become
infructuous.

28. The provisions of Section 17 of the
Act 1953 provide for the speedy payment of
price of cane purchased by the occupier of a
factory and the consequences for nonpayment, the procedure for recovery and
connected matters. Sub-section (1) of Section
17 imposes a statutory duty on the occupier
of the factory to make such provisions of
speedy payment of the price of cane
purchased by him as may be prescribed. A
statutory mandate is cast upon the occupier
by the factory fixing his liability to pay
immediately the price of cane so supplied
together with sums connected therewith. In
default of making the immediate payment of
the price of cane for a period exceeding
fifteen days from the date of delivering,
payment of interest has also been prescribed
subject to the Cane Commissioner in any
case directing, with the approval of the State
Government, that no interest be paid or paid
at such reduced rates as he may fix. In subsection (4) of Section 17 of the Act 1953, the
Cane Commissioner is enjoined to forward to
the Collector a certificate under his signatures
specifying the amount of arrears on account
of price of cane plus interest, if any, due from
the occupier and the Collector, in turn, is
enjoined to proceed to recover from the
occupier, the amount specified in such
certificate as if it were an arrear of land
revenue.

29.