# Mohammad Ahmad v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1997
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-19
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 35999 of 2019
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohammad-ahmad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45108
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

C.S.C.

A. Cancellation or suspension of fair price
shop - Allotment of the fair price shop
during
pendency
of
appeal
-
State
Government has no restriction - A
subsequent allottee has no right to
challenge the restoration of license - U.P.
Essential
Commodities
Distribution
Control Order 2016, - paragraph-9 -
Suspension
or
cancellation
of
the
agreement - the Competent Authority
shall make alternative arrangement for
ensuring uninterrupted supply of food
grains to the eligible households - Proviso
to paragraph-9 - cancellation of the fair
price shop - new arrangement shall be
issued within a month of cancellation - no
locus on the subsequent allottee to
challenge the order passed in favour of
the former allottee. (Para 12, 13 & 14)

State Government is empowered to make
alternative arrangement either by way of
attaching the card holders of another shop or
by way of making fresh allotment - if it is by
fresh allotment, in case the appeal filed by
original allottee is allowed, subsequent allottee
shall have no right whatsoever to challenge the
same, i.e., it shall not be open to him to
challenge the restoration of license in favour of
the original license holder. (Para 15)

Held: - The State authorities have a right to
make alternative arrangements and that the
new allotment is always subject to the decision
of the appeal of the existing dealer whose
license was cancelled. In case the appeal is
allowed, the subsequent allottee has no right to
challenge the same. Therefore, there can be no
restriction on the State Government to allot the
fair price shop during pendency of the appeal.
(Para 13)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -

1.The Sahkari Sasta Galla Vikreta Union, Tehsil
Sardhana, Meerut Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others

## Text

1998 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rejected. Since the said condition of
rejection
has
been
withdrawn
the
challenge to the said orders to the above
extent is of no avail.

34. It may not be out of context to
mention that a Division Bench of this
court in which of us (P. Mithal, J.) was a
member of in the case reported in 2019 (8)
ADJ 442(DB) Amar Nath Bhargava Vs.
State of U.P. and others has issued
general
directions
to
the
District
Authorities of Allahabad to finalise all
pending applications for grant of freehold
rights
filed
in
pursuance
to
the
Government Order dated 01.12.1998 most
expeditiously latest by 31 December,
2019.

35. In Dr. Ashok Tahiliani Vs. State of
U.P. and others 2019 (9) ADJ 176 another
Division Bench of this court in the matter
concerning grant of freehold rights in Nazul land
on an application submitted in accordance with
Government Order dated 01.12.1998 issued a
general mandamus commanding all District
Magistrates throughout the State of U.P. to take a
decision on all pending applications within a time
bound period not exceeding six months.

36. In the case at hand, we do not
find that the petitioners were in any way
responsible for the delay in consideration
of their application for freehold rights.
There application was complete in all
respect. It was not rejected or even treated
to be rejected as the 25% amount
deposited by the petitioners were never
offered to be returned. There is no
allegation anywhere that the petitioners
were not taking interest and have delayed
the proceedings.

37. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, we are of the opinion that
there is an inordinate and unexplained delay on
part of the respondents in dealing with the
application of the petitioners for grant of
freehold rights. Since the respondents have
executed freehold deed in favour of
Ganpat Rai Moti Ram Charitable Trust
that has purchased a small portion of the
aforesaid plot from the petitioners on
19.03.2012, the petitioners are also entitled
for freehold rights as on the aforesaid date
and at the rate on which the rights were so
conferred upon the said trust or in the
alternatively to pay damages to the
petitioners at the rate of difference
between the circle rate prevailing as on
date and that which has been applied for
grant of freehold rights to the aforesaid
trust.

38. Accordingly, we issue a writ in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to issue a demand note to the
petitioners by applying the same rate that
had been applied for grant of freehold
rights to the aforesaid Trust or the rate
prevailing as on date within a period of
one month from today and on the
petitioners depositing the said amount to
execute the sale deed within a further
period of one month from the date of
deposit of the amount by the petitioners. In
the event, the circle rate prevailing today is
applied the respondents shall compensate
the loss to the petitioners by paying
damages as observed above.

39. The Writ Petition is allowed with
no order as to costs.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1997

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.11.2019

BEFORE
1 All. Mata Deen Bhagwan Das & Sons Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1999
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Writ-C No. 35999 of 2019

Mohammad Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Om Narayan Dwivedi, Sri Devendra
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Cancellation or suspension of fair price
shop - Allotment of the fair price shop
during
pendency
of
appeal
-
State
Government has no restriction - A
subsequent allottee has no right to
challenge the restoration of license - U.P.
Essential
Commodities
Distribution
Control Order 2016, - paragraph-9 -
Suspension
or
cancellation
of
the
agreement - the Competent Authority
shall make alternative arrangement for
ensuring uninterrupted supply of food
grains to the eligible households - Proviso
to paragraph-9 - cancellation of the fair
price shop - new arrangement shall be
issued within a month of cancellation - no
locus on the subsequent allottee to
challenge the order passed in favour of
the former allottee. (Para 12, 13 & 14)

State Government is empowered to make
alternative arrangement either by way of
attaching the card holders of another shop or
by way of making fresh allotment - if it is by
fresh allotment, in case the appeal filed by
original allottee is allowed, subsequent allottee
shall have no right whatsoever to challenge the
same, i.e., it shall not be open to him to
challenge the restoration of license in favour of
the original license holder. (Para 15)

Held: - The State authorities have a right to
make alternative arrangements and that the
new allotment is always subject to the decision
of the appeal of the existing dealer whose
license was cancelled. In case the appeal is
allowed, the subsequent allottee has no right to
challenge the same. Therefore, there can be no
restriction on the State Government to allot the
fair price shop during pendency of the appeal.
(Para 13)

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -

1.The Sahkari Sasta Galla Vikreta Union, Tehsil
Sardhana, Meerut Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others

2. Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
2014(8) ADJ (DB)(LB)

3. Nasir Ali Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
2015(4) ADJ 214 (DB)

4. Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and
Others, 2014(9) ADJ 761

5. Poonam Vs. State of U.P. & Others, 2016(2) SCC 779

6. Smt. Kalawati Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
2011(10) ADJ 829

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel
for the State-respondents.

2. Pursuant to the order dated
07.11.2019, learned Standing Counsel has
produced a copy of the instructions dated
16.11.2019 sent by the District Supply
Officer, Meerut. Copy of the instruction
has also been supplied to the learned
counsel for the petitioner.

3. The present petition has been filed
with following relief:-

(I) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondent nos.2 and 3 not to
allot the fair price shop in pursuance of
notification which was published in daily
news
paper
dated
16.10.2019
till
submission of final report of S.T.F.,
2000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Lucknow where enquiry/investigation is
pending.

4. Submission of the learned counsel
for the petitioner is that admittedly,
pursuant to the direction of the Hon'ble
Division Bench of this Court issued vide
judgment and order dated 05.12.2018
passed in Public Interest Litigation (PIL)
No.4839 of 2018, The Sahkari Sasta
Galla Vikreta Union, Tehsil Sardhana,
Meerut Vs. State of U.P. & 4 Others
Senior Superintendent of Police (STF),
Lucknow has been directed to complete
the enquiry as far as possible within a
period of six months in regard to misuse of
Aadhaar
authentication
of
E-POS.
Submission is that till date the enquiry has
not been completed, but the advertisement
has been issued for allotment of shops
involved in the enquiry. Submission is that
unless the enquiry is concluded, there is no
justification in making a fresh allotment
and
the
petitioner
is
entitled
for
continuation for his shop.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel
submits that the enquiry is pending and longer
time is being taken because the Aadhaar Card
data is required for examination of the
allegations. He further pointed out that it had
been a large scale scam wide spread
throughout the State and as many as 44
districts are involved in the same. Learned
Standing Counsel further stated at the bar that
in some of the districts the dealers have also
deposited the amount. He further pointed out
that as per information supplied dealers named
in the scam in the district of Prayagraj, have
already deposited amount that was being
sought to be recovered from them.

6. I have considered the submission
and perused the record. In so far as the
present petition is concerned, the only
prayer is that no fresh notification be made
in regard to the shop of the petitioner,
pursuant to the notification published in
daily newspaper dated 16.10.2019 till
submission of final report of Senior
Superintendent of Police (STF), Lucknow,
wherein enquiry/investigation is pending.
Along with the supplementary affidavit, a
copy of the cancellation order dated
05.01.2019 passed by the District Supply
Officer, Meerut has been filed.

7. During the course of arguments
learned counsel for the petitioner further
stated
that
an
appeal
before
the
Commissioner being Appeal No.694 of
2019 is pending against the aforesaid
cancellation order. The cancellation order
is admittedly, not under challenge before
this Court.

8. Confining to the relief claimed in
the present petition, a reference may be
made to the judgment of Hon'ble Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
2014(8) ADJ (DB)(LB), para-12 whereof
is quoted as under:-

"Hence,
on
considering
the
diverse orders which have been passed by
the Division Benches of this Court, it is
clear that this Court has not held, as a
principle of law, that pending the disposal
of
an
appeal
before
the
Appellate
Authority under Clause 28(3) of the
Control Order, no arrangements can be
made by the State for securing the interest
of the card holders. On the contrary, in our
view, it is open to the State, pending
disposal of an appeal, to make suitable
alternate arrangements either by attaching
the card holders to an existing fair price
shop or by allotting the fair price shop to a
new licensee subject to the result of the
1 All. Mohammad Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2001
appeal. The reasons which were adduced
in the interim order of the Division Bench
in Vinod Kumar Mishra, with respect,
over-looked the clear mandate of Clause
28(5) of the Control Order which were not
pointed out to the Court. Be that as it may,
we may let the matter rest there since it is
a well-settled principle in law that any
interim order of the Court will ultimately
give way to the final decision in the
proceedings. Writ Petition No. 11977
(M/B) of 2010 was finally disposed of on
12 December 2011. The interim order
came to an end with the final disposal of
the petition."
 (Emphasis Supplied)

9. A reference may be made to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench in
the case of Nasir Ali Vs. State of U.P.
and Others, 2015(4) ADJ 214 (DB), para
4 whereof is quoted as under:-

"A
Division
Bench of
the
Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No. 7649 of 2014 (Vinod Kumar
Vs. State of U.P. through Principal
Secretary Food and others) decided on
19.8.2014 after considering the interim
orders passed by the Division Bench of the
Lucknow Bench clarified that as a
principle of law the Court had not held that
pending disposal of an appeal before the
Appellate Authority under Clause 28(3) of
the control order, no arrangements could
be made by the State for securing the
interest of the card holders. The Division
Bench took the view that it was open to
the
State
Government
that
pending
disposal of an appeal to make suitable
alternate arrangements either by attaching
the card holders to an existing fair price
shop or by allotting the fair price shop to a
new license subject to the result of the
appeal." (Emphasis Supplied)

10. A reference may be made to the
judgment in the case of Vinod Kumar
Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Others,
2014(9) ADJ 761, para 7 whereof is
quoted as under:-

"It appears that the Hon'ble
Court was not apprised of earlier Division
Bench judgment on the subject wherein
this issue has been considered and decided
long back. I may refer hereat the Division
Bench judgment in Writ Petition No.
19080 of 2008, Naubat Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others, decided on 11.04.2008,
wherein this very issue was raised but was
negatived by giving reasons. The Court
said:

"Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner contended that since the appeal
is already pending it is not open to
respondents to appoint another person as
fair price shop dealer in respect to the area
where the petitioner was working as fair
price shop dealer.

However, we do not find any
force in the submission. The petitioner's
agreement for distribution of essential
commodities
having
been
cancelled
admittedly, presently he has no right in the
matter
of
distribution
of
essential
commodities of fair price to the public at
large. Since there appears to be no person
available for distribution of essential
commodities of fair price, the public at
large cannot be made to suffer and,
therefore, the respondents decided to
appoint another person as a fair price shop
dealer pursuant whereto the impugned
order dated 2.4.2008 has been passed. The
aforesaid order obviously is for appointing
an intermittent dealer and subject to the
result of the petitioner's appeal, inasmuch
as, in case the said appeal is allowed and
the petitioner's agreement is restored, any
person who has been appointed in place of
2002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner would have no right to continue
thereafter, but till the time, appeal of
petitioner is decided, in our view, the
petitioner has no right, legal or otherwise,
to restrain the respondents from making
arrangement of distribution of essential
commodities appointing another person as
dealer in the area where the petitioner was
operating as fair price shop dealer.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner seeks to place reliance on order
dated 23.11.2007 passed by Hon'ble Single
Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.
57682 of 2007 wherein an order was
passed restraining the authorities from
doing any fresh allotment of the fair price
shop till the appeal is decided.

In our view, the aforesaid order
would have no application in the present
case. Firstly, in the earlier writ petition
filed by the petitioner which has been
disposed of this Court on 07.03.2008
directing the appellate authority to decide
his appeal within three months, no such
order has been passed restraining the
respondents
from
allotting
shop
in
question to any one and for the said
purpose only no fresh petition would lie.
Secondly, we are of the view that so long
as the licence of a person continued to be
cancelled he has no right either in law or
otherwise to create any obstruction in the
way of respondent-authorities in making
arrangement for distribution of essential
commodities to the public at large in such
manner as they found expedient and in the
interest of public at large. If the authorities
found it appropriate that the people would
be better serve if the fair price shop is
allotted to a third person, we do not find
any illegality or irregularity in such
exercise of power unless it can be shown
that it is mala fide or without jurisdiction
or is inconsistent to any provision or
executive order having force of law. No
such provision has been placed before us."
(emphasis added)"
 (Emphasis Supplied)

11. A reference may also be made to
Smt. Kalawati Vs. State of U.P. and
Others, 2011(10) ADJ 829, para-5 where
of is quoted as under:-

"Thus the third party, who is
allotted the distribution, do not have any
individual right but its rights are subject to
the decision in appeal and therefore a fair
price dealer, whose matter is pending in
appeal, does not suffer in any manner."
 (Emphasis Supplied)

12. It is the settled law that a
subsequent allottee has not right to
challenge the restoration of license as held
in Poonam Vs. State of U.P. & Others,
2016(2) SCC 779, para 49 whereof is
quoted as under:-

"In the instant case, shop No. 2
had become vacant. The appellant was
allotted
the
shop,
may be
in
the
handicapped quota but such allotment is
the resultant factor of the said shop falling
vacant. The original allottee, that is, the
respondent, assailed his cancellation and
ultimately succeeded in appeal. We are not
concerned with the fact that the appellant
herein was allowed to put her stand in the
appeal. She was neither a necessary nor a
proper party. The appellate authority
permitted her to participate but that neither
changes the situation nor does it confer
any legal status on her. She would have
continued to hold the shop had the original
allottee lost the appeal. She cannot assail
the said order in a writ petition because
she is not a necessary party. It is the State
1 All. Mohammad Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
2003
or its functionaries who could have
challenged the same in appeal. They have
maintained sphinx like silence in that
regard. Be that as it may, that would not
confer any locus on the subsequent allottee
to challenge the order passed in favour of
the former allottee, She is a third party to
the
list
in
this
context"
(Emphasis Supplied)

13. The above quoted judgments of
this Court clearly holds that the State
authorities have a right to make alternative
arrangements and that the new allotment is
always subject to the decision of the
appeal of the existing dealer whose license
was cancelled. It is a settled law that in
case the appeal is allowed, the subsequent
allottee has no right to challenge the same.
Therefore, there can be no restriction on
the State Government to allot the fair price
shop during pendency of the appeal. A
reference may also be made to the
paragraph-9
of
the
U.P.
Essential
Commodities Distribution Control Order
2016, which is quoted as under:-

"(9) In case of suspension or
cancellation
of
the
agreement,
the
Competent
Authority
shall
make
alternative
arrangement
for
ensuring
uninterrupted supply of foodgrains to the
eligible households :

Provided
that
in
case
of
cancellation of the arrangement of the fair
price shop owner, new arrangement shall
be issued within a month of cancellation."

(Emphasis Supplied)

14. Thus, Proviso to paragraph-9
clearly
provides
that
in
case
of
cancellation of the fair price shop, new
arrangement shall be issued within a
month of cancellation.

15. It is needless to say that
obviously the aforesaid provision has been
made so that the ration card holders may
not suffer on account of cancellation or
suspension of fair price shop. The picture
as
emerges
from
the
above
noted
discussion is that the State Government is
empowered
to
make
alternative
arrangement either by way of attaching the
card holders of another shop or by way of
making fresh allotment. However, if it is
by fresh allotment, in case the appeal filed
by original allottee is allowed, subsequent
allottee shall have no right whatsoever to
challenge the same, i.e., it shall not be
open to him to challenge the restoration of
license in favour of the original license
holder.

16. That apart, in this case in P.I.L.
No. 4839 of 2018 vide order dated
05.12.2018, the Hon'ble Division Bench
has directed for enquiry within a period of
six months, which is being conducted by
the Senior Superintendent of Police (STF),
Lucknow.
Aforesaid
order
dated
05.12.2018 is quoted as under:-

"The Public Interest Litigation
has been filed for an appropriate writ,
order or direction for the respondents to
conduct enquiry in accordance with
Government Order dated 27.8.2018 and
complete the same within a definite time
frame.

From perusal of the office order
dated 29.8.2018 (Annexure-4) it reveals
that the entire issue with regard to misuse
of Aadhar authentication in distribution of
E-POS has been handed over to Special
Task Force, Uttar Pradesh.

It is submitted by the learned
Standing Counsel that the Special Task
Force is making necessary enquiry in the
matter.
2004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Having considered the statement
made at Bar and having looked into the
office order dated 29.8.2018, we leave it
for appropriate disposal by directing the
Senior Superintendent of Police (STF),
Lucknow
to
ensure
expeditious
enquiry/investigation in the matter and to
arrive at a logical consequence. The entire
enquiry should be completed as far as
possible within a period of six months
from today.

The writ petition stands disposed
of."

17. This Court was further informed
that when the enquiry was not completed
pursuant to the above quoted order, a
P.I.L. No.1404 of 2019, Naresh Kumar
Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Others was
filed, wherein order dated 18.10.2019 was
passed, which is quoted as under:-

"Pursuant to an order dated
5.12.2018
passed
in
Public
Interest
Litigation No. 4839 of 2018 (The Sahkari
Sasta
Galla
Vikreta
Union,
Tehsil
Sardhana, Meerut v. State of U.P. &
others) an enquiry has been instituted but
it has not been taken to its logical end. The
present PIL has been filed with the
grievance that in spite of the order of the
Division Bench dated 5.12.2018 no further
progress has been made in the said
enquiry.

On 16.9.2019 learned counsel
for the State was granted time to seek
instructions regarding progress of the
enquiry. Sri A.K. Goyal, learned Addl.
Chief Standing Counsel has received the
instructions from S.T.F. Headquarter,
Lucknow. We have perused the same and
it is taken on record.

In
the
aforementioned
instructions it is recorded that in respect of
the food scam 458 cases have been
registered and the matter has been
transferred from Inspector General, S.T.F.,
who was earlier appointed as Nodal
Officer, to the Inspector General, Cyber
Crime.

List this case after six months
before the appropriate Bench. By the next
date,
learned
Addl.
Chief
Standing
Counsel shall file progress report of the
next six months.

Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned
Advocate
has
filed
his
memo
of
appearance on behalf of Union of India. It
is also taken on record."

18. For the discussion made
hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the
claim of the petition. Moreover, in view of
the facts as highlighted by learned
Standing Counsel that the E-POS machine
scam is State wide and is spread over in as
many as 44 districts of the State and is
being investigated by the I.G., Cyber
Crime, I am not further inclined to
exercise powers of this Court under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.

19. At this stage, learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that interim protection
was granted to the petitioner in vide order
dated 16.11.2019 passed in Writ C No.37214
of 2019, M/s Sarfaraj Vs. State of U.P. and 2
Others by pointing out that till next date of
listing no further allotment shall be done by the
competent authority.

20. In the facts and circumstances of
the case as discussed above, I am not
inclined to follow the aforesaid interim
order particularly in view of the law
settled by the Full Bench as well as
Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by
which
rights
were
finally
decided.
Moreover, this petition itself is being
decided finally after full length hearing.
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.