Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 716 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Petitioners vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 16 April, 2024

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                AT NAINITAL
           HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MS. RITU BAHRI
                             AND
             HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL

                           16TH APRIL, 2024

         WRIT PETITION (M/S) No. 41 OF 2018

Dilbagh Singh and another.
                                                            ...Petitioners

                                   Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others.
                                                         ...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioners.        :   Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned Senior
                                        Counsel assisted by Mr. Tushar
                                        Upadhyay, learned counsel.

Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to    :   Mr.   C.S.   Rawat, learned  Chief
3.                                      Standing Counsel for the State of
                                        Uttarakhand.

Counsel for respondent no. 4.       :   Mr. Manav Sharma, learned counsel.

JUDGMENT :

(per Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.)

The short question for consideration in the

present Writ Petition, is whether the State is bound to

make payment of the Sugarcane, which the petitioners

have supplied to the respondent no.5-Sugar Mill.

2. As per Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane

(Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Act, 1953, which is

reproduced in Paragraph no. 9, at Page No. 10 of the

paper-book, the State Government, for maintaining

supplies, has to regulate the purchase and supply of cane in the reserved and assigned areas, and as per

Section 13, at Page No. 9 of the paper-book, the State

Government, by making Rules, can make provision for

fixing of prices in respect of the entries, so corrected or

added in the register, and prescribing of the procedure

for payment of such price.

3. The only power, which the State Government

is exercising, under the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of

Supply & Purchase) Act, 1953, is to regulate the prices,

which the sugar-mill has to pay to the farmers.

4. The sugar mill company has gone into

liquidation in the year 2013. Recovery certificate of the

dues to the petitioners (cane growers) was issued on

22.08.2012, and thereafter, the sugar mill company

has gone into liquidation in the year 2013.

5. The judgment cited by the learned Senior

Counsel for the petitioners of the Allahabad High Court,

in the case of Tarun Chatterjee and others v. Cane

Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow, 2004 5 AWC 4175,

is also not applicable to the facts of the present case,

as even in this case, no directions have been given to

the State Government to make the payment to the

farmers. The only remedy available with the farmers,

was to approach the Cane Commissioner to get the

recovery certificate.

6. At this stage, since the sugar mill company

has gone into liquidation, no direction can be given to

the State to make payment to the petitioners, pursuant

to the recovery certificate issued in the year 2012.

7. The Writ Petition (PIL) is, accordingly,

dismissed.

8. Pending application(s), if any, also stand

disposed of accordingly.

______________ RITU BAHRI, C.J.

__________________ RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.

Dt: 16th April, 2024 Rahul