# Ravindra Ahlawat v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 2 ILRA 482
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-12-09
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 39738 of 2019
- **Bench:** Pankaj Mithal, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravindra-ahlawat-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45311
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Act,
1953
and
U.P.
Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and
Purchase) Rules, 1954-Rule 29-Petitioner-
Chairman
of
Cane Development
Councilgranted authorisation u/R 29 -to watch and
check the weightments at cane purchase
centres within concerned zone-authorisation
order withdrawn-Power under Rule 29-to grant
authorisation-discretionary-not an individual's
rights-no rights of Petitioner is infringed-W.P.
dismissed.

## Text

482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
notice of demand was sent but it did not
evoke any positive response or there was
specific rejection by the Management of
this demand contained in the notice and
thereafter he sleeps over the matter for
number of years, it can be treated that he
accepted the factum of his termination and
rejection thereof by the management and
acquiesced into the said rejection."

14. The inordinate delay and latches,
in the instant case, had rendered the claim
'dead'. It was not a case where the claim
remained alive but was raised with delay.
Therefore, the principle of moulding relief,
where the Tribunal is approached with
delay, but in respect a 'live claim' would
not apply to the facts of the instant case.
The reference itself was invalid.

15. Moreover, in the impugned
award, there is no clear cut finding that
respondent No.1 had worked for 240
days
in
twelve
calendar
months
preceding the termination of his service.
The Tribunal had merely observed that
there is evidence to show that respondent
No.1 had worked as daily wager
continuously between November 1985 to
31.5.1990.
The
Tribunal
thereafter
referred to Section 6-N and then jumped
to the conclusion that there is violation
of the said provision. On this ground
also the impugned award cannot be
sustained in law.

16. In consequence and as a result
of
discussion
made
above,
the
impugned award dated 21.9.2016 is
quashed. The petition is allowed.
However, in case any payment has
already been made to respondent No.1
in pursuance of interim order of this
Court, it shall not be recovered.
----------
(2020)02ILR A482

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.12.2019

BEFORE

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

Writ C No. 39738 of 2019

Ravindra Ahlawat ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anoop Trivedi, Sri Abhinav Gaur,
Siddharth Baghel

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply
and
Purchase)
Act,
1953
and
U.P.
Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and
Purchase) Rules, 1954-Rule 29-Petitioner-
Chairman
of
Cane Development
Councilgranted authorisation u/R 29 -to watch and
check the weightments at cane purchase
centres within concerned zone-authorisation
order withdrawn-Power under Rule 29-to grant
authorisation-discretionary-not an individual's
rights-no rights of Petitioner is infringed-W.P.
dismissed.

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

1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddhartha
Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing
Counsel
appearing
for
the
Staterespondents. Sri Ravindra Singh and Sri
Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the
parties who claim to be necessary parties
2 All. Ravindra Ahlawat Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
483
but have not been impleaded, have also
been heard.

2. The petitioner who has stated
himself to be the Chairman of Cane
Development Council, Daraula, Meerut
had been granted authorisation by an order
dated 18.10.2017 to watch and check
weighments at the cane purchase centres
within the zone concerned. The aforesaid
authorisation had been made by the Cane
Commissioner, Sugarcane and Sugar, U.P.
(in short 'the Cane Commissioner') under
Rule 29 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation
of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 19541.

3. The Cane Commissioner by the
order impugned dated 12.04.2018 has
divested him of the power to watch and
check the weighments etc., as granted in
terms
of
the
earlier
order
dated
18.10.2017. The order withdrawing the
authorisation granted to the petitioner has
referred to some enquiry report submitted
by an enquiry team constituted by the
District Magistrate.

4. The order withdrawing the
authorisation issued under Rule 29 of the
Rules, 1954 is sought to be assailed on the
ground that the same has been passed
without affording opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner and without serving him a
show cause notice.

5. In order to appreciate the
controversy the provisions under the Uttar
Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply
and Purchase) Act, 19532 and the rules
made thereudner namely the Rules, 1954
may be referred to.

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. The Act, 1953 and the Rules, 1954
also
provide
for
an
administrative
mechanism for inspection of the cane
purchase centres and also for checking of
the
weighments,
weigh-bridges
and
weights.

8. In addition, under Chapter VIII of
the
Rules,
1954,
which
relates
to
weighments, the Cane Commissioner is
empowered to authorise any person
including
such
employees
and
representatives of cane grower's cooperative societies as he may consider
necessary to watch or check weighments,
weigh-bridges and weights and also to
examine the parchas in which the weights
and prices of the cane are recorded.

9. Section 11 of the Act, 1953
empowers
the State
Government
to
appoint any person or designate such
officers of the Government as it thinks fit
to be Inspectors within such local limits as
may be assigned to them. The Inspectors
are required to perform the duties and
exercise the powers conferred upon them
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under the Act, 1953. For ease of reference
Section 11 is being extracted below:-

"11. Inspectors.--(1) The State
Government may for purposes of this Act
appoint any person or designate such
officers of the Government as it thinks fit
to be Inspectors within such local limits as
may be assigned to them.

(2) The Inspectors shall perform
the duties and exercise the powers
conferred or imposed upon them by or
under this Act."

10. Chapter V of the Rules, 1954 relates
to the Inspectors, and in terms of Rule 19
contained thereunder, the Cane Commissioner
shall be ex officio Inspector for the whole of
the State. The Commissioners, the Collectors,
the Sub-Divisional Officers, the District
Planning
Officers,
the
Deputy
Cane
Commissioners,
the
Assistant
Cane
Commissioners, the Range Co-ordination
Officers, the District Cane Officers, the
Additional District Cane Officers and the
Senior Cane Development Inspectors shall be
ex officio Inspectors within their respective
jurisdiction. In terms of the proviso to Rule 19
the Cane Commissioner may with the object
that the inspection may be more effective has
been empowered to extend the jurisdiction of
the ex officio Inspectors other than the
Commissioners, the Collectors, the SubDivisional Officers, the District Planning
Officers and for the said purpose he may form
special checking squads headed by such ex
officio
Inspectors.
The
powers
and
responsibilities of the Inspectors have been
enumerated under Rule 20. For ready reference
Rules 19 and 20 of the Rules, 1954, referred to
above, are being reproduced below:-

"19. The Cane Commissioner and
the Sugar Commissioner shall be ex officio
Inspectors for the whole of the State. The
Commissioners, the Collectors, the SubDivisional Officers, the District Planning
Officers, the Deputy Cane Commissioners, the
Assistant Cane Commissioners, the Range Coordination Officers, the District Cane Officers,
the Additional District Cane Officers and the
Senior Cane Development Inspectors shall be
ex officio Inspectors within their respective
jurisdiction.

Provided that where necessary
the Cane Commissioner or the Sugar
Commissioner, as the case may be, may
with the object that the inspection may be
more effective, by order extend the
jurisdiction of ex officio Inspectors other
than the Commissioners, the Collectors,
the Sub-Divisional Officers, the District
Planning Officers and may from special
checking squads headed by such ex officio
Inspectors.

20. Every Inspector may, within
the local limits of his jurisdiction and with
such assistance as may be necessary--

(a) enter any factory or other
place which is used or which he has reason
to believe is being used as a purchasing
center or for the maintenance of any
records, registers, accounts or other
documents relevant thereto.

(b) examine the weighbridge or
weights used, kept or possessed for the
weighment or purchase of cane.

(c) cause any vehicle carrying
cane or other consignments of cane to be
weighed or re-weighed in his presence.

(d) check weighments, purchases
and payments made.

(e)
inspect
factory
roads,
cattlesheds, cattle troughs and lighting
arrangements made for weighments of
cane.

(f) examine the records showing
the amount of cane purchased and crushed.

(g) call for from the occupier of
a factory or his employee, any information
2 All. Ravindra Ahlawat Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
485
relating to the purchase, supply, crushing
of cane and payment of cane price.

(h) issue from time to time such
instructions as may be necessary to ensure
equitable purchase of cane.

(i)
examine
any
records,
registers, accounts or documents of Canegrowers' Co-operative Societies.

(j) examine any record, register
or documents or call for any information
relating to the payment of purchase tax,
commission and price of cane.

(k) take into his possession and
remove from the premises of a factory or
purchasing center such records, registers,
documents
statements
and
returns,
maintained or caused to be maintained by
the occupier of a factory as he may require
for the purpose of any enquiry or
examination, and

(l) exercise such other powers as
may be necessary for carrying out the
purposes of the Act and these Rules."

11. Chapter VIII of the Rules, 1954
may also be taken note of which is in
respect of weighments, and whereunder in
terms of Rule 29 the Cane Commissioner
is empowered to authorise any person
including
such
employees
and
representatives of cane growers' cooperative societies as he may consider
necessary to watch or check weighments,
weigh-bridges and weights, and also to
examine the parchas in which the weights
and prices of the cane are recorded. Rule
29 of the Rules, 1954 referred to above
reads as under:-

"29. The Cane-Commissioner
may authorise any person including such
employees and representatives of Canegrowers' Co-operative Societies as he may
consider necessary to watch or check
weighments, weigh-bridges and weights,
as also to examine the parchas in which
the weights and prices of the cane are
recorded."

12. The provision for grant of
authorisation under Rule 29 to watch or
check weighments is thus in addition to
the elaborate administrative machinery
provided for in terms of Section 11 of the
Act, 1953 and the Rules 19 and 20 of the
Rules, 1954 in terms of which the Cane
Commissioner and certain other specified
officers are to be ex officio Inspectors
empowered with the power of inspection,
which inter alia, includes the power to
examine the weighments also.

13. It is therefore seen that the
power to be exercised by the Cane
Commissioner under Rule 29 to grant
authorisation
to
watch
or
check
weighments, is discretionary and is to
be
exercised
whenever
the
Cane
Commissioner
may
consider
it
necessary to do so. Conferment of
discretionary powers in the hands of
administrative authorities is not only
well recognised but is also considered
essential for effective administration.

14. The provisions under Rule 29
of the Rules, 1954 do not create any
obligation on the Cane Commissioner
to necessarily authorise any particular
person
to
watch
or
check
the
weighments,
weigh-bridges
and
weights as also to examine the parchas
in which the weights and prices of the
cane are recorded and no individual
can claim any legally enforceable right
with regard to the same.

15. Counsel for the petitioner has not
been able to show any right of the
petitioner to be allowed to watch or check
486 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
weighments by virtue of his holding the
office of the Chairman of the Cane
Development Council, Daraula, Meerut.

16. In view of the above, no legal
right of the petitioner has been infringed
even if authorisation granted earlier by the
Cane Commissioner has been withdrawn.

17. It has lastly been submitted that a
fresh enquiry ought to be conducted in the
matter after giving notice and opportunity
to the petitioner.

18. The material on record, in
particular,
the
communication
dated
15.10.2019 (Annexure-15) of the writ
petition indicates that the petitioner was
given an opportunity during the course of
the enquiry. However, if the petitioner still
has some grievance, it would be open to
him to approach the authority concerned.

19. This Court is of the view that
since no legal rights of the petitioner have
been infringed there is no ground for
interference in the matter.

20. The writ petition thus fails and is
dismissed subject to the observations made
above.
----------
(2020)02ILR A486

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.02.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ C No. 40523 of 2019

Paras Nath Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri W.H. Khan, Sri Javed Hussain Khan, Sri
Gulrez Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Vinod Kumar Chandel

A. Civil Law-UP Kshettra Panchayat and
Zila Panchayat Act, 1961 - Recovery of
contractual amount - Arrears of land revenue -
Contractual amount cannot be recovered as
arrears of land revenue, in the absence of any
provisions contained under UP Kshetra Samiti
and Zila Panchayat Adhiniyam, 1961 -The
action taken by the respondents by way of
issuing the recovery citation is not legally
justified. (Para 21)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

1. Writ C No. 12575 of 2013 (Subhas Tiwari Vs.
State of UP) decided on 17.10.2014

2. Subhash Chand Vs. Collector, Etawah and
others, 1999 (1) AWC, 582

3.
Titu
Singh
Mathura
Vs.
District
Magistrate/Collector, Mathura and others, 2003
(5) AWC 3479

4. Iliyas Vs. State of UP and others, 2007 (2)
ADJ, 143 (D.B.)

5. Mohd. Umar Vs. Collector / D.M. Moradabad
and others, 2006 (9) ADJ 66 (All) (DB)

6. Sanjay Kumar Gupta Vs. State of UP and
others, 2013 (5) ADJ 506 (DB).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.)

1. Heard Sri W.H. Khan,
learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Javed Hasain Khan, for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel
for State-respondents and Sri Vinod
Kumar Chandel, for respondent nos.
2
and
3.