Batala Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited vs The State of Punjab and Others

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—Civil Writ Petition Nos. 17293 of 2005 and 6107 of 2006 are being disposed of by way of common order as the common questions of law and facts are involved therein. The petitioner-Sugar Mills in these two petitions seek to assail the notification dated 05.09.2002, whereby 29 villages have been transferred from reserved area of petitioner-Mill to respondent No. 3-Mill in CWP No. 17293 of 2007, while a similar relief is claimed in CWP No. 6107 of 2006 qua a notification dated 31.05.2005, whereby 41 villages have been transferred from reserved area of that petitioner to reserved area of respondent No. 3 and 3 villages have been transferred to respondent No. 4-Mill.

It is not in dispute that the decisions to issue the notifications were pursuant to hearing granted to the Mills, for which they have earlier filed writ petitions.

The controversy arises in view of the restriction placed on the movement of the sugar cane under the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966, whereby an area is reserved for the Mill where sugarcane is grown dependent on the record of the crushing capacity of the factory of the Mill.

We had called for the records to see the material before the competent authority which went into making a decision and the same has been placed on record before us. The record shows that both the cane growers and the Mills have been heard. Learned counsel for the petitioners did seek to raise an objection to the hearing granted to the growers, but that is an aspect which is difficult to sustain in view of the order itself being for the benefit of the cane growers. The minutes show that the Mills have been unable to meet their target as per capacity. In fact, on the other hand, they have advised the cane growers to sow the cane as per the last year and that the Mills would not be made responsible for crushing of the cane for more than the quota already allotted to the cane growers for growing cane. There was, thus, discouragement on the part of the petitioner-Mills to the cane growers as they sought to restrict them to the output as per the last year (2001-02). There is a categorical finding of the incapacity of the petitioner-Mills to crush cane in the allotted year and that is what resulted in transfer of the villages to other Mills, duly supported by representatives of the Gram Panchayat.

In our view, the petitioner-Mills cannot be permitted to plead that since they have assisted the farmers in earmarking certain area for cane growth, especially against shifting of villages to another Mill, for they are unable to meet their commitments and crush sugarcane according to their capacity.

It is the aforesaid reason which appears to have weighed with the cane growers and wishing them to associate with the other Mills, rather than the petitioners.

We, thus, see no reason to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioner-Mills to challenge the impugned decision. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.