Allahabad High Court
Alakhram vs State Of U.P.Thru Its ... on 8 December, 2015
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Attau Rahman Masoodi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
? A.F.R.
Court No. - 4
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 11275 of 2015
Petitioner :- Alakhram
Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru Its Prin.Secy.Sugar U.P.Shashan Lko.& Ors
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar,Akshat Srivastava,Kamlesh Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,K.S.Pawar
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1,2 & 4 and Sri K.S. Pawar, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 3.
The prayer made in this petition is for quashing the order dated 08.10.2015 annexure no. 1 to the writ petition and for a mandamus directing the respondent no. 5 i.e. Sugar Mill to compensate the petitioner in relation to the sugar cane which could not be supplied by the petitioner.
The contention of the learned Counsel is that this non-supply was totally attributable to the sugar mill inasmuch as the sugar mill was firstly obliged to purchase the sugar cane grown in the reserved areas, keeping in view provisions under Sections 15 (2) and 15 (3) of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953.
It is further contended by the petitioner that the sugar mill is under an obligation to comply with the calender fixed for the purpose of issuing slips to the farmers requisitioning purchase of sugar cane which was not adhered to by the sugar mill. The petitioner was not given slips as per calender fixed so as to ensure timely supply of the sugar cane within the reserved area of the sugar mill.
It is then contended that on a complaint made by the petitioner, even though the slips were issued, a very short time was given to the petitioner to ensure the supply that resulted in serious prejudice. He could not supply within such a short time.
Consequently, for the aforesaid reasons the conclusion drawn by the learned Commissioner while rejecting the representation of the petitioner is not in conformity with law and the same he quashed with a direction to the sugar mill to compensate the petitioner.
Sri K.S. Pawar, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 3 and the learned Standing Counsel have urged that the Cane Commissioner has taken into account the report of the District Cane Officer, Faizabad dated 05.10.2015. The report has been found to be correct and fault was found on the part of the petitioner having failed to supply the sugar cane in spite of the fact that he was issued the slips timely. Thirteen days time was publicly announced by the sugar mill for free purchase at the mill gate that was also not availed of by the petitioner.
We have considered the submissions raised and we find that the petitioner's contention in essence is that the timely non issuance of slips resulted in this prejudice to the petitioner and it was only on a representation made by the petitioner that the slips were issued that gave only five days time for supply. The contention is that eighteen slips were issued and therefore it was not possible to supply the sugar cane within five days and this was contrary to the calendar that was to be observed by the Sugar Mill.
We have examined the said submissions and paragraph nos. 12 to 19 of the petition. The petitioner admits having received the slips but he contends that the time of five days that too even when the mill was going to be closed, was too short a period for supplying sugar cane. This aspect is sought to be substantiated on the strength of a judgment dated 20.02.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 19819 of 1997, Hari Shanker and others vs Cane Commissioner, U.P. and others stated to have been upheld by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 3363 of 2007.
We find on the facts of the present case that it is evident that it is not the case of the petitioner that he was never issued any slips. The petitioner's contention is that non observation of the calender by the sugar mill entitles the petitioner for award of compensation for the loss of sugar cane that remained un-supplied.
We have gone through the decision of the Cane Commissioner which has been rendered in view of the provisions of Rule 108 of the 1954 Rules and we find that the report of the District Cane Officer dated 05.10.2015 has been relied upon to indicate that the bonding of the petitioner was for supply of 1314.84 quintals and against that he supplied only 368.37 quintals. When he moved an application on Tehsil Diwas on 03.03.2015, he was extended the benefit of the slips that were available but he failed to supply even against a single slip and no effort appears to have been made to attempt a supply after the mill had opened free purchase at the gate of the mill for thirteen days.
In view of the findings so recorded, we do not find any successful challenge having been raised by the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be said that the fault lies with the mill or can be attributed to the mill for the purpose of awarding compensation.
No case is made out for interference, accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.12.2015
I.A. Siddiqui
