# M/s J.H.V. Sugar Ltd v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 2004
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-17
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 38530 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Vipin Chandra Dixit
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-j-h-v-sugar-ltd-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45111
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Purchase) Act, 1953 - Section 12 -
Estimates of requirements - Sections 15 -
Declaration of reserved area and assigned
area - Section 15(4) - an appeal before the
State Government against the order of the
Cane Commissioner passed under Section
15(1) - petitioner failed to submit its
estimate of requirement of the quantity of
sugarcane
to
the
cane
commissioner
needed
for
the
crushing
-
Cane
Commissioner
committed
no
error
or
illegality in not reserving/assigning any
area for the supply of sugarcane -
petitioner has an alternative remedy of
filing an appeal to the State Government
against
the
order
of
the
Cane
Commissioner
reserving/assigning
any
area for the purposes of supply of
sugarcane to a sugar mills. (Para 10, 30 & 39)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. Mohammad Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2005

21. The petition is devoid of merit
and is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2020)1ILR 2004

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ-C No. 38530 of 2019

M/s J.H.V. Sugar Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam, Sri Alok Kumar
Srivastava

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

A. Allotment of sugarcane area - U.P.
Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and
Purchase) Act, 1953 - Section 12 -
Estimates of requirements - Sections 15 -
Declaration of reserved area and assigned
area - Section 15(4) - an appeal before the
State Government against the order of the
Cane Commissioner passed under Section
15(1) - petitioner failed to submit its
estimate of requirement of the quantity of
sugarcane
to
the
cane
commissioner
needed
for
the
crushing
-
Cane
Commissioner
committed
no
error
or
illegality in not reserving/assigning any
area for the supply of sugarcane -
petitioner has an alternative remedy of
filing an appeal to the State Government
against
the
order
of
the
Cane
Commissioner
reserving/assigning
any
area for the purposes of supply of
sugarcane to a sugar mills. (Para 10, 30 & 39)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -
1. Simbholi Sugars Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. and
others 2010(3) ADJ 628 (LB)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.
 & Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.)

1. The petitioner J.H.V. Sugar Ltd. is
a company incorporated and registered
under the Companies Act, 1956 and is
running a sugar mill at Gadaura, Tehsil
Nichlaul, District Maharajganj.

2. The aforesaid sugar mill since
1999 has been allotted sugarcane area for
the supply of the sugarcane for each
crushing season. It has a crushing capacity
of 4500 TCD.

3. The aforesaid sugar mill has been
allotted sugarcane area for each of the
crushing season from 2000-01 till 201415. In 2015-16 no allotment was made in
its
favour
due
to
labour
problem.
Thereafter, sugarcane area was again
allotted to it in the year 2016-17 and 201718. In the crushing season 2018-19 again
the said mill had not functioned and as
such no allotment was made.

4. In the present writ petition the
petitioner has raised dispute regarding
allotment of sugarcane area for the
crushing season 2019-20.

5. It has filed the writ petition seeking a
direction upon the respondent No.2 i.e. the
Cane Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow to allot
sugarcane area to its aforesaid mill for the year
2019-20 as per its crushing capacity.

6. Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam, Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Alok Kumar
Srivastava, who appears for the petitioner
has raised two points in support of the
relief
claimed
in
the
petition.
2006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. The first is that the aforesaid sugar
mill had been allotted sugarcane area in all
the previous years from 2000-01 but for
exception of two years and that there is no
justification on part of the respondent No.2
to omit it from the allotment for the
crushing season 2019-20. The said sugar
mill has been singled out inasmuch as all
other sugar mills in the State of U.P. have
been allotted suitable appropriate areas.

8. Secondly, he submits that the
respondent No.2 has acted in an arbitrary
manner rather in a discriminatory manner
in the allotment of the sugarcane area to
the sugar mills. The mills that have
defaulted in the payment of cane dues,
have
been
allotted
sugarcane
areas
whereas the petitioner's sugar mill has
been left out probably on account of
default in the payment of the cane dues.
The outstanding dues of the sugarcane can
be paid by the defaulting sugar mills in the
next
area
in
accordance
with
the
government order dated 02.11.2017.

9. The petition has been opposed by the
State of U.P. by filing counter affidavit for two
reasons that the petitioner is a defaulter and
that it had also failed to submit the statement of
the quantity of the sugarcane required by it to
the Cane Commissioner for the crushing
season 2019-20.

10. Sri Ravindra Singh, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents No.
6 to 12 has also opposed the writ petition
on similar grounds by filing a separate
counter affidavit. He further contends that
the petitioner has an alternative remedy of
filing an appeal to the State Government
against
the
order
of
the
Cane
Commissioner
reserving/assigning
any
area for the purposes of supply of
sugarcane to a sugar mills.

11. The petitioner has filed rejoinder
affidavits to the above counter affidavits
contending that the appeal does not lie in
the present case as there is no order of
reservation/assignment of any area for the
supply of the cane to the aforesaid sugar
mill. The provision of appeal would only
apply when there is such an order and a
person is aggrieved by it.

12. It is further submitted that there
was no occasion for the petitioner sugar
mill to submit any statement as no notice
as contemplated by Section 12 of the Act
was
given
and
reserved
upon
the
petitioner.

13. In order to consider the aforesaid
rival claims of the parties it would be
relevant to mention that the supply and
purchase of sugarcane for the use in sugar
factories/mills is controlled and governed
by the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of
Supply
and
Purchase)
Act,
1953.(hereinafter referred to as the Act).
Under the scheme of the said Act the Cane
Commissioner is required to reserve/assign
area to every sugar mill for the purposes of
supply of cane for the crushing seasons
and that the cane growers of that area have
to supply sugarcane to the sugar mills
through the Cane Growers Cooperative
Societies.

14. Chapter III of the aforesaid Act
deals with the supply and purchase of the
sugarcane. Sections 12 and 15 of the
aforesaid Act are relevant for our purpose
which are being reproduced herein-below:-

"12. Estimates of requirements.
- (1) The Cane Commissioner, may for
purposes of Section 15, by order, require
the occupier of any factory to furnish in
the manner and by the date specified in the
1 All. M/s J.H.V. Sugar Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2007
order to the Cane Commissioner an
estimate of the quantity of cane which will
be required by the factory during such
crushing seasons or crushing seasons as
may be specified in the order.

(2) The Cane Commissioner
shall examine every such estimate and
shall
publish
the
same
with
such
modifications, if, any, as he may make.

(3) An estimate under subsection (2) may be revised by an authority
to be prescribed.

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 the
Cane Commissioner may, after consulting
the Factory and Cane-growers' Co-
operative 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 purposes 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 any 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)."

15. Section 12 of the Act obliges
every sugar mill to furnish by specified
date the estimate of the quantity of the
sugarcane required by it during the
crushing seasons on the asking of the Cane
Commissioner.

16. The Cane Commissioner after
necessary examination of the estimates
finalise it and publishes it whereupon the
areas are assigned to the sugar mills under
Section 15 of the Act.

17. According to the Section 15 of
the Act where any area is reserved or
assigned to any sugar mill the said mill is
required to purchase all the sugarcane
grown in that area and i.e. offered for sale
to it.

18. There is no dispute to the fact
that the Cane Commissioner for the
crushing season 2019-20 after requiring all
the sugar mills to submit their estimates of
the quantity of the sugarcane required had
passed an order of reservation/assignment
of the sugarcane areas to each of the sugar
mill except for the petitioner sugar mill.
Accordingly, the petitioner sugar mill has
been left out from the allotment of the
sugarcane area for the crushing season
2019-20.

19. The petitioner submits that the
Cane Commissioner had not required it to
furnish any statement as no notice in this
regard was served upon it.

20. The respondents have brought on
record the copy of the office order dated
13.08.2019
issued
by
the
Cane
Commissioner U.P. under Section 12(1) of
2008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Act requiring all the sugar mills to
supply their estimates of quantity for the
crushing season 2019-20.

21. It is stated the aforesaid order was
sent to each of the sugar mills through email
and all of them submitted their estimates
except the petitioner. The Cane Commissioner
after examining the estimates of each one of
them finalised the areas. No area could be
reserved or assigned to the petitioner as it
failed to submit any estimate.

22. Sri Nigam, has made an effort to
submit that no such email was received by
the petitioner sugar mill and that a notice
for the supply of the estimates was issued
to some of the sugar mills otherwise than
by email but the petitioner was left out.

23. There is no specific mode
provided under the Act or the Rules in
which an order would be served upon the
occupiers of the sugar mill to furnish their
estimates of the quantity of sugarcane
required for the crushing seasons.

24. In the absence of any specific
mode of service of the order contemplated
under Section 12 of the Act, the service of
the same by email cannot be held to be
illegal. It is one of the fastest mode of
service in the present days which is
acquiring all round acceptability.

25. The respondents in the counter
affidavit have clearly stated that the
aforesaid order requiring estimate from the
sugar mills was sent through email to all
the sugar mills requiring them to submit
their estimates in the required form by
20th August, 2019.

26. All the sugar mills submitted
their estimates except the petitioner.

27. The mere denial of the service of
such an email by the petitioner does not
inspire confidence when similar emails
were duly served upon the other sugar
mills.

28. The petitioner had not run the
sugar mill in the last crushing season
2018-19.

29. It was therefore, but natural to
presume that the petitioner was still not
ready to run it until and unless there was
any
specific
information
that
it
contemplates to run the mill in the present
crushing seasons.

30. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, as the petitioner failed to
submit its estimate of requirement of the
quantity of sugarcane needed for the
crushing
season
2019-20,
the
Cane
Commissioner committed no error or
illegality in not reserving/assigning any
area for the supply of sugarcane to it.

31. This apart the other reason which
has come on record for not allotting any
area to the petitioner sugar mill is nonclearance of the sugarcane dues of the past
years.

32. In this regard Rule 22 of the Rules
framed under the Act is relevant which
provides that in reserving or assigning the area
to any sugar mill or determining the quantity of
cane to be purchased by any mill, the cane
Commissioner shall take into consideration
apart from the other things, the arrangements
made by the factory in previous years for the
payment of not only cess and commission but
also the cane price.

33. The relevant part of the aforesaid
Rule reads as under:-
1 All. M/s J.H.V. Sugar Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2009

"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 facotry,

(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 in reserved or assigned area."

34. In view of the aforesaid Rule the
arrangement made by the petitioner for the
payment of cane price in the past years is a
material and relevant consideration for the
allotment of sugarcane area to it.

35. Learned counsel for the petitioner
does not dispute that the petitioner had not
cleared the complete dues of the cane price
of the last year or of some previous years.

36. In Simbholi Sugars Ltd. Vs.
State of U.P. and others 2010(3) ADJ
628 (LB) it has been observed that it shall
be obligatory on part of the Cane
Commissioner and the government not to
allot or reserve or assign any new purchase
centre and also to continue with the old
one of any sugar mills against the whom
cane price are outstanding.

37. The argument that the petitioner
has been discriminated as some of the
defaulting sugar mills have been allotted
sugar canes areas is of no substance. First,
the petitioner cannot claim equality with
any illegality. Secondly, petitioner is not
aggrieved by the allotment of area to such
other sugar mills and has not put any
challenge to any such illegal allotment.

38. The petitioner is not entitle to any
benefit of the government order dated 02.11.2017
inasmuch as it relates only to the clearance of the
dues of the last crushing season.

39. In addition to the above, Section
15(4) of the Act clearly provides that an appeal
shall lie to the State Government against the
order of the Cane Commissioner passed under
Sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of the Act.

40. Sub-Section (1) of Section 15 of
the Act pertains to the order of the Cane
Commissioner
reserving
any
area/assigning any area for the purpose of
supply of cane to a factory during a
particular
crushing
season.
Nonreservation of an area for any reason
amounts to implied refusal of allotment to
the sugar mill and as such the order of
allotment of sugarcane area to other sugar
mills leaving aside the petitioner sugar
mill is an order which would fall in the
same category and would be appealable
under Section 15(4) of the Act but the
petitioner chose not avail the said remedy.

41. In view of the totality of the facts and
circumstances of the case, we do not feel
incline or deem it necessary to exercise our
discretionary jurisdiction in the matter.

42. The writ petition is accordingly
dismissed with no order as to costs.
----------
2010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2020)1ILR 2009

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 39799 of 2019

Ashutosh Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri H.R. Mishra, Sri Krishna Mohan Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965section 65- Reserve Bank of Indiacancelled
the
license
of
bank-and
directed the Registrar of Cooperative
Societies to wind up the bank and
appoint
a
liquidator-Registrar
have
power to suo moto initiate inquiry or
upon the application of 1/3 of the total
members of the society-Inquiry not bad.

Held, A careful reading of Section 65 of the Act
provides that Registrar may, of his own accord,
himself or by a person authorised by him by order in
writing, hold an inquiry into the constitution, working
and financial condition of a co-operative society. Thus,
Sub-Section (1) of Section 65 is crystal clear as far as
the powers of Registrar are concerned for suo moto
initiating inquiry by himself or by a person authorised
by him, as in the present case the Assistant
Commissioner/Assistant Registrar, who has been
delegated powers of the Registrar, proceeded to
initiate inquiry under Section 65 of the Act. (Para 12)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of cases cited: -

1. Hari Om Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and othersWrit Petition No. 37566 of 2019
2. Vishnu Kumar Jha Vs. Reserve Bank of India
and others, Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.
48181 of 2017

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.)

1. Heard Sri H.R. Misra, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri K.M.
Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Standing Counsel for the
respondent nos. 1 to 5.

2. This writ petition has been filed
assailing the order dated 29.08.2018
passed by the respondent no. 5 directing
inquiry under Section 65 of the U.P.
Cooperative
Societies
Act,
1965
(hereinafter referred to as the ''Act').

3. Facts, in brief, as narrated in the
writ petition, are that there is one
Brahmawarta Commercial Cooperative
Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as
the ''bank') having its Head Office at 90,
M.I.G. Ratan Lal Nagar, Kanpur Nagar.
The aforesaid bank has been registered
under the provisions of the Act and was
granted banking license by the Reserve
Bank of India under the provisions of
Banking Regulations Act, 1949. The bank
in
question
is
a
Primary
Urban
Cooperative Bank having been insured
under the provisions of the Deposit
Insurance Corporation Act, 1961.

4. According to the petitioner there
are forty thousand individuals as members
of the bank. By order dated 26.06.2018,
relying upon the inspection report dated
31.03.2014, the Reserve Bank of India
cancelled the license of the bank in
question. On 26.06.2018, the Executive
Director of the Reserve Bank of India by
exercising powers under Section 22 read
with
Section
56
of
the
Banking