The Yamuna Nagar Cane Growers Cooperative Society Ltd. and Another vs The Cane Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and Another

D.S. Tewatia, J.—The common question of law and facts involved in these two writ petitions, which we propose to decide by a common judgment, is as to whether the Cane Commissioner was competent to issue instructions (Annexure P4), requiring the cane-growers or the Canegorowers Cooperative Society to execute two agreements one pertaining to early maturing variety and the other pertaining to general variety grown in the area-assigned to the sugar mills in this particular case Yamunanagar Sugar Mills-and also as to whether such instructions could be issued with regard to the supply of such sugarcane to only one sugar mills out of the many sugar mills in the State of Haryana and whether this does not amount to practice of hostile discrimination between such cane-growers and Cane-Growers Society, as are required to supply sugarcane to Yamunanagar Sugar Mills, and the other cane-growers and Cane-Growers Society, whose area is assigned to other sugar mills in the State.

The supply of sugarcane to the sugar mills by the cane-growers/ Cane-Growers Cooperative Society is regulated by the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') and the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and supply) Rules, 1958 (for short ''the Rules'').

Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Act, which is in the following terms, envisages appointment of an agent by the occupier of a sugar mill as defined by Section 2, Sub-section (11) of the Act, who would effect purchases from the can-growers Co-operative Society for the given sugar mills: -

Appointment of an agent.-(1) No cane shall be purchased for a sugar factory unless its occupier has, in the prescribed form, sent a notice of such intention to the Cane Commissioner, nominating one or more person as agents for making such purchases, and no agent shall be changed without prior notice in writing to the Cane Commissioner.

Section 14(2) envisages that the said agent shall enter into an agreement with a canegrower or with a Cane-Growers'' Co-operative Society in such form, by such date and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed for the purpose of purchasing the cane offered in accordance with Sub-section (1) of Section 14 of the Act. Rule 11(3) of the Rules envisages that the agent of a given factory shall enter into an agreement in Form-VIII with the cane-growers or with the cane-growers co-operative-society within one month of the offer mentioned in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 11.

It has been canvassed on behalf of the Petitioners that Rule 11(3) of the Rules in terms envisages execution of one agreement only and not more than one agreement with the cane-growers or with the Cane-Growers Co-operative Societies for the supply of sugarcane and, therefore, the impugned instructions issued by the Cane Commissioner Annexure (Annexure P-(sic) to the extent that it required the cane-growers/ Cane-Growers Co-operative Society to execute bond in regard to the early variety, run counter to the provisions of Rule 11(3) of the Rules and are, therefore, ultra vires the Rules and are illegal. It has also been canvassed by Mr. G. S. Sandhu, counsel for the Petitioners, that since the instructions issued by the Cane Commissioner cover the cane-growers/Cane-Growers Co-operative Society, who supply sugarcane to the Saraswati Sugar Mills, Yamunanagar, only, and not to other sugar mills, so the same are discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

In the written statement filed on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 i. e. the Cane Commissioner and the Saraswati Sugar Mills, the stand taken is that the general variety of sugarcane does not develop the requisite sugar content early and, therefore, it is uneconomical to crush such sugarcane and extract sugar therefrom till beyond the month of November and that gives lesser working time to the sugar mills and thus makes it uneconomical to the sugar mill. In order to enable the sugar mills to carry on their normal operation for the major portion of the year, early maturing sugarcane varieties have been developed. Since such varieties develop sugar contents of the requisite percentage much earlier, so the sugar mills pay extra amount, over and above the controllable price, to the cane-growers of such variety. The mills also subsidise the supply of seed of such early maturing varieties and extend other facilities to the canegrowers of such varieties. The cane-growers are prepared to receive benefits from the sugar mills for growing early maturing variety of sugarcane, but instead of supplying it to the sugar mills, they find it more profitable to divert it to Khandsari units and thus defeat the underlying purpose of giving subsides etc. by the sugar mill for growing early maturing varieties.

The modus operandi adopted by the cane-growers/Cane-Growers Cooperative Societies was that they would supply the general variety in larger quantity and thereby make up the short-fall in the supply of the early maturing variety of sugarcane and thus escape penalty with the argument that they had supplied the total contracted supply of the sugarcane as mentioned in the agreement. Such behaviour on the pare of the cane-growers/Can-Growers Cooperative Societies obviously created difficulties for the sugar mills, in that they would miss a month of working period and for the remainder of the working period they would have so much supply of general variety of sugarcane that they may find it difficult to cope with. Not only this, such behaviour on the part of the cane-growers also made it difficult to achieve the equitable supply of the sugarcane to the mills by various canegrowers and co-operative societies as envisaged by Rule 11 of the Rules.

To tackle this mischief on the part of the cane-growers/Cane-growers Co-operative Societies, the Cane Commissioner issued the impugned instructions requiring the cane-growers/Cane-Growers Cooperative Societies to execute a separate bond regarding the supply of sugarcane of early maturing variety.

So far as the competence of the Cane Commissioner to issue the impugned instructions is concerned, it may be observed that Form-VIII is to be issued by the prescribed authority. Under Clause 10 of Form VIII the Cane Commissioner is the prescribed authority. What is more, Sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act clearly envisages that the agent of a factory shall enter into an agreement with the canegrowers or with the Cane-Growers Co-operative Societies, as the case may be, in such form, by such date and on such terms as may be prescribed. The prescribing authority being the Cane Commissioner, he was competent to prescribe that the cane-growers/Cane-Growers Co-operative Societies shall execute a separate bond for the supply of early maturing sugarcane variety For the reasons, afore-mentioned, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Cane Commissioner was competent to issue the impugned instructions and that the same did not contravene any provision of the rule or statute, as contended on behalf of the Petitioners.

As to the alleged hostile discrimination resulting from the application and compliance with the impugned instructions, it may be observed that in the written statement of Respondent No. 1 it has been mentioned by the Cane Commissioner that the early maturing sugarcane varieties were grown in a very very small area of the area assigned to other sugar mills, whereas such a variety was grown in a large portion of the area assigned to Respondent No. 2-Saraswati Sugar Mills-and, therefore, such instructions were issued only regarding Respondent No. 2. When such is the position, then it cannot be said that there was no occasion to restrict the compliance of the instructions to such cane-growers/Cane-Growers Coperative Societies, whose area stood assigned to Respondent No. 2-Saraswati Sugar Mills.

For the reasons afore-mentioned, we find no merit in these writ petitions and dismiss the same with no order as to costs.