AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Mithal,J.
We have heard Sri Ved Byas Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents Nos. 1,2 and 3, Sri Ashish Mishra, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 and Sri Atul Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 7.
The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying for quashing the orders dated 2nd December, 2010 (Annexure2 to the Writ Petition); 2nd December, 2010 (Annexure3 to the Writ Petition) and 27th October, 2010 (Annexure4 to the Writ Petition) reserving various sugarcane purchase centres mentioned in the said orders in favour of the Respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 respectively, for the year 201011.
The said orders have been passed by the Cane Commissioner in purported exercise of his powers under Section 15 of the U.P. Sugar cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act 1953 read with Rule 22 of the U.P. Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules 1954 and Clause 6 (1) (a) of the U.P. Sugar Cane Control Order 1966.
SubSection (4) of Section 15 of the U.P. Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act 1953 inter alia provides that an appeal shall lie to the State Government against the order of the Cane Commissioner passed under SubSection (1) of the said Section. Thus the Petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing appeals against the aforesaid orders passed by the Cane Commissioner reserving various purchase centres respectively in favour of the Respondents No. 5,6 and 7.
Having regard to the nature of controversy involved in the present Writ Petition, we are of the opinion that it will be appropriate that the Petitioner be relegated to the alternative remedy available to him under SubSection (4) of Section 15 of the U.P. Sugar cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act 1953 . Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed on the said ground.
We may however, observe that in case the Petitioner files appeals in respect of the aforesaid impugned orders within two weeks from today before the Appellate Authority, the appeals will be entertained without raising any objection in regard to the limitation. On such appeals being filed within the period mentioned above, the Appellate Authority will proceed to decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of the said appeals after giving opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner as well as the Respondents No. 5, 6 and 7 and all other concerned parties.
The Writ Petition is dismissed subject to the above observation.