Kisan Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ

Kisan Co-operative Sugar Factory Limited, the appellant, is aggrieved by the order dated 20.09.2021, passed by a learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (M/S) No.1942 of 2021, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition, ostensibly, on the ground that the writ petition is a second writ petition, filed on the same set of facts. Hence, not maintainable.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that, the appellant is a Multi State Cooperative Society Sugar Factory registered as Sugar Factory Limited, Majhola, District Pilibhit, Uttar Pradesh under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002. According to the appellant, it has about three thousand members who belong to different villages. The farmers and the members of the said Society regularly grow sugarcane which is supplied to L.H. Sugar Factory Ltd. Furthermore, according to the appellant, they had supplied sugarcane to the L.H. Sugar Factory Ltd. for the sowing seasons 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, and 2010-11. Subsequently, on 17.09.2019, the appellant wrote a letter addressed to the Cane and Sugar Commissioner, Sugarcane and Sugar Factory Committee, Uttar Pradesh, informing him that on 13.08.2019, a proposal has been passed by the members to reopen the Sugar Factory in Uttarakhand in order to protect the interest of the farmers of Uttarakhand. They further requested that they be permitted to supply their sugarcane to the nearest Sugar Factory, i.e. L.H. Sugar Factory Ltd., situated at Pilibhit in Uttar Pradesh. Since there was no reaction from the side of the respondents, again on 27.08.2020, another representation was submitted to the respondent No.3 wherein they pointed that earlier they supplied their sugarcane to Majola Sugar Factor. However, the same is closed. Therefore, farmers would like to supply the sugarcane to the L.H. Sugar Factory Ltd., i.e. the respondent No.6.

Since both these representation fell on deaf ears, and since the respondent Nos.3 and 4, the Cane and Sugar Commissioners, did not permit the farmers to supply their sugarcane to the respondent No.6, the appellant filed a writ petition before this Court, namely Writ Petition (M/S) No.1761 of 2020. By order dated 06.10.2020, the learned Single Judge directed the appellant to file a representation before the respondent Nos.3 and 4. However, by order dated 31.10.2020, the respondent No.3 has dismissed the appellant's representation. Hence, the appellant filed the present writ petition, namely Writ Petition (M/S) No.1942 of 2021, before the learned Single Judge. As mentioned hereinabove, by order dated 28.09.2021, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the aforementioned ground. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

Mr. M.S. Pal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the apprehension in the mind of the appellant is that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge would debar the appellant from challenging any adverse order that may be passed against it for the sowing season 2021-22. For, according to the learned Single Judge, the appellant was seeking the same relief in the present writ petition. Therefore, the appellant is of the opinion that it will not be appropriate to seek the same relief even in future writ petitions.

Considering the apprehension in the mind of the appellant, and considering the fact that there is no objection from the side of the State in clarifying the impugned order dated 20.09.2021, it is, hereby, clarified that any observation made by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 20.09.2021, passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No.1942 of 2021, would not prevent the appellant from challenging any adverse order which may be passed against it with regard to the sowing season 2021-22. After all, each sowing season is treated as a separate period. And each sowing season would give rise to a fresh cause of action, in case any adverse order were to be passed against the appellant-society.

With this clarification, this appeal is disposed of.