9911796707
TMI Blog1968 (1) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Central Government delegated the powers conferred on it by Clauses 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Order on, inter alia, the State Governments of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh as well as on the Cane Commissioners of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. Utilising this delegated power, the Cane Commissioner, Bihar, on 30th. December, 1966, made an order (No. 3088) directing that the villages named in the list shall constitute the reserved area of Purtabpore Sugar Factory Limited, Mairwa, for the purposes of sugarcane during the seasons 1966-67 and 1967-68. The list included 208 villages. All these villages were situate in the district of Saran in the State of Bihar. Feeling aggrieved the Standard Refinery and Distillery Limited, respondent No. 9, questioned the validity of this reservation order by instituting a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court at Patna C. W. J. C. No. 63 of 1967. The petitioner contested it During its pendency, respondent No. 9 made representations to various authorities for re-opening the question of reservation of 208 villages in favour of the petitioner. Coming to know of these moves, the petitioner Company made representations to the Government of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ential mandamus be issued to him and the State Government of Bihar not to act in virtue of or in pursuance of the orders passed by the Cane Commissioner, Bihar, on 14th November, 1967. The seat of the Government of Bihar as well as the residence of the Cane Commissioner of Bihar are in the State of Bihar, that is outside the territories of the State of Uttar Pradesh to which alone the jurisdiction of this Court extends. The petitioner can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court only if it establishes that the cause of action for the claimed relief arose wholly or in part within the territories of Uttar Pradesh. 5. The person making the impugned order as well as the subject-matter of the order, namely the 208 villages, are both situate outside Uttar Pradesh. The order was passed at Patna in the State of Bihar. Any part of the cause of action based on these facts would arise outside the territories of Uttar Pradesh. For the petitioner Mr. Ray relied on a composition of facts for establishing that the cause of action did arise within the territories of Uttar Pradesh. The learned counsel stated that the petitioner Company's factory is situate within the territories of Uttar Pradesh. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ide the other order in favour of respondent No. 9 would remain in operation. That by itself would constitute modification of the earlier order passed on 30th December, 1966. Without setting aside the order passed in favour of respondent No. 9, no effective relief could be granted to the petitioner. 7. Mr. Ray urged that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Bachhittar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395 before an opinion of a statutory authority can amount to an order, it must be communicated to the person affected by that order. Then alone that person can be bound by the order; because till its communication it would be open to the authority to consider the matter again. Hence, till its communication the order cannot be regarded as anything more than provisional in character. Thus the order of the Cane Commissioner became binding on the petitioner only when it was communicated to it. The communication was at its factory within the State of Uttar Fradesh. If the law provides for the method of communication of an order made under it, the order would acquire legal force and operation only when it is communicated in that manner. Clause 6 of the Sugarcane (Control) Ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quantity of sugarcane required by it; (b) ..... (c) fix, with respect to any specified sugarcane grower or sugarcane growers generally in his reserved area the quantity or percentage of sugarcane grown by such grower or growers, as the case may be, which each such grower by himself or, if he is a member of a co-operative society of sugarcane growers operating in the reserved area, through such society, shall supply to the factory concerned; (d) direct a sugarcane grower or a sugarcane growers' co-operative society, supplying sugarcane to a factory, and the factory concerned to enter into an agreement to supply or purchase, as the case may be, the quantity of sugarcane fixed under paragraph (c); (e) ..... (f) ..... 2. Every sugarcane grower, sugarcane growers' co-operative society and factory, to whom or to which an order made under paragraph (c) of Sub-clause (1) applies, shall be bound to supply or purchase, as the case may be, that quantity of sugarcane covered by the agreement entered into under the paragraph and any willful failure on the part of the sugarcane grower, sugarcane growers' cooperative society or the factory to do so, shall constitute a brea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esh. 10. The last submission for the petitioner related to the infringement of the decision of the Joint Sugarcane Board. No statutory provision recognises such a Joint Board. The Sugarcane (Control) Order envisages the State Governments or the Cane Commissioners of the respective States of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar as the relevant authorities entitled to make orders thereunder. Under other laws prevailing in the States of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar like the Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act, 1937 and the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 contemplated the creation of a Sugarcane Board for their respective States. In view of the territorial affinity of the two States, each State included representatives of the other State in its own Sugarcane Board. Such Sugarcane Boards used to hold meetings together, to discuss and deliberate on matters of mutual interest, and to formulate common policies. The petitioner's allegation is that at one such meeting on 3rd February, 1964, at Lucknow it was decided that 208 villages would be kept reserved for the petitioner factory. The minutes of such a meeting filed by the petitioner do not show that any such decision was r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
