JUDGMENT S. D. Agarwala, J. 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. The petitioner is M/s. Basti Sugar Mills Co. Limited, Basti and it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it relates to the factory of the Company in Basti. The factory is engaged in the process of manufactures of crystal sugar by the vacuum pan process. The petitioner initially challenged the order of the State Government granting licence to the firm of Kasaudhan Sulpher Sugar Mills for manufacturing khandsari in a reserved area allocated and assigned to the petitioner factory. During the pendency of this petition on 19th September, 1988 an application was moved by the petitioner seeking to implead M/s. Chaudhari Sugar Mills Pvt. Limited, Mohammadnagar, district Basti in place of Kasaudhan Sulpher Sugar Mills Limited. The impleadment was sought on the ground that Khandsari unit has been transferred by the owners to Sri Shafat Ali who is running Khandsari unit under the name and style of Chaudhary Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. Mohammadnagar, district Basti. This was done by the order of the Deputy Cane Commissioner on 20th December, 1986 and the licence was renewed in favour of Kasaudhan Sulpher Sugar Mills Mohammadnagar district Basti on 23rd November, 1986. This application for impleadment was allowed by this court on 23rd February, 1989. In the circumstances the respondent no. 4 now to the present petition is M/s. Chaudhary Sugar Mils Pvt. Ltd. Mohammadnagar, district Basti. This will hereinafter referred as 'Khandsari Unit.' 3. The present petition was filed in the year of 1977. It has come up for hearing after 13 years. In 1988 a supplementary affidavit was filed by the petitioner which contains data of cane crushed by the petitioner during the various seasons from 1976-77 on wards till 1987-88. No other supplementary affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances so far as the record is concerned it only contains the facts till the year 1987-88 only. It is not in dispute that crushing season 1987-88 is already over. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The sole argument raised by Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner's factory should have been heard before the licence was renewed in favour of the respondent no. 4, Khandsari unit. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The sole argument raised by Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the petitioner's factory should have been heard before the licence was renewed in favour of the respondent no. 4, Khandsari unit. His further argument is that it is incumbent upon the State Government to issue notice to the petitioner factory before renewing the licence in favour of the Khandari unit if the Khanesari unit purchases sugar cane from the reserved area of the petitioner factory. 5. In order to examine the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner it is necessary to examine various laws relating to the issue of a licence to a khandsari unit and the manner in which a khandsari unit is permitted to purchase sugarcane from a reserved area. 6. In the year 1966 Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 issued Sugarcane (control) order, 1966. The object of gassing this order by the Central Government was to promote sugar industry and to eliminate unnecessary impediments in the production of sugar. It also ensures a fair deal to the growers of sugarcane. The provisions of the order was intended to maintain harmony between the growers of the sugarcane and the producers of sugar and to enable both of them to share profits reasonably. Clause 6 of this order empowers the Central Government to regulate distribution and movement of sugarcane. Clause 7 empowers the State Government to issue licence to the power crushers, khandsari units and crushers and to regulate the purchase of sugarcane. Clause 8 empowers the Central Government to issue directions to the producers of khandsari sugar, power crushers, khandsari units, crushers and cooperative societies. Clause 11 empowers the Central Government to delegate its power to the State Government or any officer or authority of the State Government. The powers conferred on the Central Government tinder clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Sugarcane (control) order, 1966 have been delegated to the State Government under clause 11 of the said order. The State Government, thereafter made U. P. Khansari Sugar Manufacturer's licencing orders, 1967 as also U. P. Restriction on Sugarcane Purchase Order, 1966. The powers conferred on the Central Government tinder clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Sugarcane (control) order, 1966 have been delegated to the State Government under clause 11 of the said order. The State Government, thereafter made U. P. Khansari Sugar Manufacturer's licencing orders, 1967 as also U. P. Restriction on Sugarcane Purchase Order, 1966. The U. P. Khandsari Sugar Manufacturer's licensing order, 1967 shall be hereinafter referred to as licencing order 1967 and U. P. Restriction on Sugarcane Purchase order, 1966 shall be hereinafter referred to as 1966 order. 7. Even prior to the promulgation of these orders, U. P. legislature had enacted. The U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 hereinafter referred to as 1953 Act. This Act regulated supply and purchase of sugarcane required for use in sugar factories and Gur, Rab or khandsari Sugar Manufacturing units and other connected matters. Section 15 of this 1953 Act provides for a declaration of reserved area and assigned area. Same section further provides that where any area has been declared as reserved area for a factory, the occupier of such factory shall if so directed by the Cane Commissioner purchase all the cane grown in that area which is offered for sale to the factory. It has been further provided that where any area has been declared as assigned area for a factory the occupier of such factory shall purchase such quantity of cane grown in that area and offered for sale to 4he factory as may be determined by the Cane Commissioner. The 'Reserved area' has been defined under section 2 (m) of 1953 Act to mean an area reserved for a factory specified in. an order made under section 15 of the Act. Assigned area has been defined in section 2 (a) of the Act meaning an area assigned to a factory under section 15 of the Act. Distinction between reserved area and assigned area is that in the case of reserved area the factory has to purchase all the cane grown in the area and while in the case of an assigned area the factory has to purchase such quantity of cane as determined by the Cane Commissioner. 8. Section 16 of the Act which is relevant for the decision of the controversy in the present petition is quoted below : "16. 8. Section 16 of the Act which is relevant for the decision of the controversy in the present petition is quoted below : "16. Regulation of purchase and supply of cane in the reserved and assigned areas- (1) The State Government may, for maintaining supplies by order, regulate- (a) the distribution, sale or purchase of any cane in any reserved or assigned area; and (b) purchase of cane in any area other than a reserved or assigned area. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the he foregoing powers such order may provide for- (a) the quantity of cane to be supplied by each cane grower or cane growers co-operative Society in such area to the factory for which the area has so been reserved or assigned; (b) the manner in which cane grown in the reserved area or the assigned area, shall be purchased by the factory for which the area has been so reserved or assigned and the circumstances in which the cane grown by a cane grower shall not be purchased except through a cane growers' co-operative Society (c) the form and the terms and conditions of the agreement to be executed by the occupier or manner of the factory for which an area is reserved or assigned for the purchase of cane offered for sale (d) the circumstances under which permission may be granted- (i) for the purchase of cane grown in reserved or assigned area by a Gur, rab or kbandsari Manufacturing units or any person or factory other than the factory for which area has been reserved or assigned, and (ii) for the sale of cane grown in a reserved or assigned area to a Gur, Rab or kbandsari Manufactureing unit or any person or factory other than the factory for which area is reserved or assigned; (e) such incidental and consequential matters as may appear to be necessary or desirable for this purposes." By the above section 16 it is clear that State Government can regulate purchase of cane in a reserved area or assigned area as also in an area other than a reserved and assigned area. It further empowers the State Government under certain circumstances to permit a Khandsari unit to purchase cane grown in a reserved or assigned area. 9. The licence to carry on manufacture of Khandsari sugar is granted under the Licencing Order 1967. It further empowers the State Government under certain circumstances to permit a Khandsari unit to purchase cane grown in a reserved or assigned area. 9. The licence to carry on manufacture of Khandsari sugar is granted under the Licencing Order 1967. Section 3 of the Licencing Order specifically provides that no manufacturer shall without obtaining from the Licencing Authority a licence in the form prescribed in Schedule I undertake or carry on any process concerned with the manufacture of Khandsari sugar by means of power crusher, bel or centrifugal. The manner in which an application for grant of licence or renewal of the licence is to be has been prescribed in clause 3 of the Licensing Order. Sub-clause (4) of clause 3 of the Order provides the manner in which an application for the grant or renewal of the licence has to be disposed of by the licensing authority. It is quoted below : (4) An application for the grant or renewal of a licence shall be disposed by the Licensing Authority expeditiously and shall not be rejected except where the application has not been made by the prescribed date or on the prescribed form or is incomplete or is not accompanied by proof of the payment of the requisite fee or the Licensing Authority is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the public interest with a view to- (a) regulating the Khandsari sugar manufacturing Industry in the best interest of the Industry; or (b) avoiding uneconomic concentration of Khandsari units in any area ; or (c) ensuring in a reserved or assigned area adequate supplies of sugarcane to a factory." Provisos have not been quoted as they are not relevant for the decision of the controversy in the present petition. 10. From the above sub-clause (4) it would be clear that when an application for the grant of renewal of the licence is under consideration before the Licensing Authority, the . Licensing Authority while granting the licence has to keep in mind sub-clause (a), (b), (c) quoted above. Schedule I of the Licensing Order is a form in which licence to the Khandsari unit is given. In this form it is not stated from where Khandsari unit is to purchase sugarcane. 11. Licensing Authority while granting the licence has to keep in mind sub-clause (a), (b), (c) quoted above. Schedule I of the Licensing Order is a form in which licence to the Khandsari unit is given. In this form it is not stated from where Khandsari unit is to purchase sugarcane. 11. Under 1966 order if a Khandsari unit to whom a licence has been granted under the Licensing Order wants to purchase sugarcane from a reserved area then he has to obtain a permit. Under this 1966 Order without a permit no Khandsari unit can purchase sugarcane or sugarcane juice in a reserved area. The Khandsari unit has to apply for a permit. The permit is issued in Form No. II appended to 1966 Order. It is this permit which specifies that from which reserved area Khandsari unit will purchase sugarcane and quantity. Under clause 8 of the order the Cane Commissioner has been given the power to suspend or cancel the permit. 12. The seheme culled out from the above order is that a Khandsari unit has to first obtain a licence and thereafter get a permit, if it wants to purchase sugarcane from a reserved area. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on subclause 4 (c) quoted above of the Licensing Order 1967 and it is on this basis he has urged that no licence can be granted or renewed unless the factory is given an opportunity of being heard as also notice is to be issued to the factory if the Khandsari unit is situated in a reserved area. In our opinion, it is not possible to give such interpretation to this sub-clause 4 (c). In the Licensing order there is no provision for issuing notice to a factory, nor is there any requirement that an opportunity should be afforded to the factory before grant or renewal of the licence. Guidelines have been laid down for the Licensing Authority. The Licensing Authority has to ensure that when a Khandsari unit is granted a licence or its licence is renewed adequate supply of sugarcane is available to the factory and that is all. No prior notice or prior opportunity of being heard to a factory is contemplated by the Licensing Order. Guidelines have been laid down for the Licensing Authority. The Licensing Authority has to ensure that when a Khandsari unit is granted a licence or its licence is renewed adequate supply of sugarcane is available to the factory and that is all. No prior notice or prior opportunity of being heard to a factory is contemplated by the Licensing Order. When a permit is granted under the 1966 order to purchase sugarcane from a reserved area then alone it can be said that some right of the factory from whom the area has been reserved may be affected. 13. The grant and renewal of a licence, therefore, in favour of the Khandsari unit does not in any manner affect the right of a factory. The right of a factory comes only when a Khandsari unit purchases sugarcane from a reserved area by means of a permit. In the circumstances in our opinion, at the stage of granting or renewal of a licence for the manufacture of the khandsari sugar, the factory is in no manner affected at all and consequently the question of issuing notice or affording opportunity of hearing to a factory at the stage of issuing a licence or at the time of its renewal, does not arise. 14. If a permit is issued under 1966 order by the Cane Commissioner permitting a Khandsari unit to purchase sugarcane in a reserved area then no doubt, the factory for which area is reserved will have a right to object to grant of a permit. This stage will only arise after the permit has been granted. We, are, therefore, of the opinion that in case a permit is granted to a Khandsari unit for purchase of sugarcane from a reserved area then the factory for which area is reserved may object to the grant of the permit if the working of the factory is adversely affected by grant of such permit. There is no provision or necessity of giving a prior opportunity of being heard before granting a permit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two decisions of this court in support of his submissions. There is no provision or necessity of giving a prior opportunity of being heard before granting a permit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon two decisions of this court in support of his submissions. The first case is a decision given by a Division Bench of this court on 21st December, 1976 in Writ Petition No. 4831 of 1975 Shankar Sugar Mills Limited Deoria v. The Joint Sugar Commissioner, decided by a Bench of Hon. C. S. P. Singh and B. N. Sapru, JJ. Another case relied upon is a Single Judge decision of this court given in Simbhaoli Supr Mills Ltd. v. Joint Secretary, 1988 ALJ 624. 15. In the case of Shankar Sugar Mills. Ltd. referred to above a khandsari unit was granted licence for the year 1975-76. It was thereafter renewed for the year W76-77. In fact, after renewal was made petition was filed challenging the grant as well as renewal of the licence to the khandsari unit. In the said case a contention was raised on behalf of the petitioners that if a licence is granted to a khandsari unit for being established in the reserved or assigned area an opportunity should be given to the sugar factory to contest the matter. This argument was not accepted and it was held that if a khandsari unit is established in reserved or assigned area of the sugar factory then merely by issue of licence for establishing a khandsari unit in the reserved or assigned area no right or sugar factory was infringed thereby. The relevant portion of the judgment is quoted below :- "In this connection, it was urged by the counsel for the petitioners that even if a licence is granted to a khandsari unit for being established in the reversed or assigned area, an opportunity should be given to the sugar factory to contest the matter. We are unable to accept this argument. If a khandsari unit is established in the reserved or assigned area of a sugar factory without permission enabling him to make purchases in the reserved or assigned area, no right of the sugar factory is infringed thereby." The Court however, further observed as such :- "If however, the licence is granted permitting purchases in the reserved or assigned area, it would be necessary to hear the sugar factory before the grant of such a licence. When it comes to renewal, and in case the sugar factory alleges that the khandsari unit has made purchases in violation of the licence, i.e. by purchasing sugarcane outside the permissible area or in excess of the quantity allowed, it will be necessary to hear the sugar factory before renewing the licence." 16. In the said Judgment for the word 'permit' the word 'licence' has been used. The intention of the Court, however, was to hold that so far as granting of licence was concerned no opportunity was to be given to the Khandsari unit but when a permit is issued to the Khandsari unit permitting a khandsari unit to purchase in a reserved or assigned area then the sugar factory had a right to be heard because it is at that stage rights of the sugar factory are affected. In the circumstances our decision does not go contrary to the decision given in the case of Shankar Sugar Mills. It was the renewal of the permit which was really the subject matter of dispute in the said case and any observation in regard to the giving of an opportunity before grant of a licence was merely obiter. This position is further clear from the operative portion of the judgment where it is said that even if it is assumed that no such opportunity was necessary to be given at initial stage it should be given at the time of the renewal of the permit. Learned Single Judge in the case of Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Ltd. (supra) was primarily considering the question as to whether the transfer of a licence was valid or not. The learned Single Judge also appears to have held that a sugar factory had a right to be heard before a new licence is granted under the khandsari order within the reserved area. He has relied upon the decision of Shankar Sugar Mills Limited. In that case also it was also held that before licence is granted to the khandsari unit within a reserved or assigned area no opportunity of hearing need to be given to a sugar factory. The right of the sugar factory comes into effect only when a permit is issued in favour of a khandsari unit permitting purchase of sugarcane from a reserved area. We do not agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge on this question. The right of the sugar factory comes into effect only when a permit is issued in favour of a khandsari unit permitting purchase of sugarcane from a reserved area. We do not agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge on this question. Learned Single Judge has also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court In Purtabpur Co. v. Cane Commissioner, AIR 1970 SC 1896 , we have gone through the Judgment. We find that the question of a grant of an opportunity to a sugar factory before issuing a licence to the khandsari unit was not the question involved before the Honourable Supreme Court and as such the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court does not go contra to the view we have taken. 17. Consequently we do not agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that before granting or renewing the licence of a khandsari unit within the reserved area the State is obliged to issue notice to the factory for whom the area is reserved or such factory has to be given an opportunity of hearing before granting or renewing licence of a khandsari unit. We, however, further held that after a permit is granted to a khandsari unit under U. P. Restriction on Sugarcane Purchase Order. 1966 for purchase of sugarcane from a reserved area for a particular factory then the said factory can file objections to the said permit. The factory can also file objections if a khandsari unit disregards the terms of the permit/or contravenes any provision of the 1966 order. If such objections are filed it is incumbent upon the authorities to consider the objections in accordance with law. 18. In the instant case as we have already stated above, petitioner factory has given data only in respect of the crushing season of 1987-88. No data has been given for the subsequent years. It is also not stated that any objection has been filed to the permit granted to the respondent no. 4. In the circumstances, no relief can possibly be granted to the petitioner in the present petition. With the above observations the petition is disposed of. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.