G. P. MATHUR, J. The petition is being of finally at the admission stage with the consent of the parties. 2. U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been enacted to regulate the supply and purchase of sugarcane required for use in Sugar Factories. The Cane Commissioner exercising powers under Section 15 of the Act passed an order on November 9, 1994 assigning certain purchase centres to U. P. State Sugar Corporation (Unit Rampur) (petitioner) (hereinafter referred to as Rampur Sugar Mills ). Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Cane Commis sioner, Ayodhya Sugar Mills (respondent No. 4) preferred an appeal before the State Government under sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Act. The appeal was allowed by an order dated December 24, 1994 and four purchase centres namely, Sewani, Kharsol, Shahbad-A and Shahbad-B were assigned to Ayodhya Sugar Mills (respondent No. 4 ). The present writ petition has been filed by Rampur Sugar Mills for quashing of the aforesaid order. 3. The order passed by the State Government is a short one. The Appellate Authority has mentioned the distance |of the aforesaid four purchase centres from three Sugar Mills namely, Rampur Sugar Mills (petitioner), Ayodhya Sugar Mills (respondent No. 4) and Venus Sugar Mills. After observing that all the four purchase centres were closest from Ayodhya Sugar Mills, they have been assigned in its favour. No other details or reasons have given in the impugned order for allowing the appeal and assigning the centres to respondent No. 4. 4. Before considering the contentions raised by the rival parties, it will be convenient to refer to certain provisions of the Act and Rules which have a bearing on the controversy in issue. Under sub-section (1) of Section 15 the Cane Commissioner may, after consulting the Factory and Cane-growers Co-operative Society in the manner to be prescribed, reserve and assign and area for the purposes of supply of cane to a factory in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 and may likewise at any time cancel such order or alter the boundaries of an area so reserved or assigned. Section 16 centers powers upon the State Government to regulate the sale or purchase of Cane in any reserved or assigned area. Section 16 centers powers upon the State Government to regulate the sale or purchase of Cane in any reserved or assigned area. It also confers power to regulate 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. Section 17 provides that the occupier of a factory shall make such provisions for speedy payment of the price of cane purchased by him and upon the delivery of cane he shall be liable to pay immediately the price thereof. Section 5 of the Act lays down the manner in which Development Council will be constituted and Section 6 lays down the functions thereof basically for improving the quality and yield of sugarcane. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 28 of the Act, the State Government has framed U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). Sub- rule (f) defines purchase Centre and it means any place at which cane is purchased, supplied, delivered, weighed, or paid for and includes such portion of the premises of a factory as is used for any of these purposes. Rule 22 of the Rules reads as follows : 22. In reserving an area for or assigning an area to a factory or determining the quantity of cane to be purchased from an area by a factory, under Section 15, the Cane Commissioner may take into consideration- (a) the distance of the area from the factory, (b) facilities for transport of cane from the area, (c) the quantity of cane supplied from the area to factory in previous year, (d) previous reservation and assignment orders, (e) the quantity of cane to be crushed in the factory, (f) the arrangement made by the factory in previous years for payment of cane price and commission, (g) the views of the Cane Growers Co-operative Society of the area, (h) efforts made by the factory in developing the reserved or assigned area. Chapter IX of the Rules gives in detail the procedure for payment of price of cane supplied to a Sugar Factory. 5. A perusal of Section 15 of the Act would show that the order assign ing or reserving any area has to be made after consulting the Factory and Cane-growers Co-operative Society. Chapter IX of the Rules gives in detail the procedure for payment of price of cane supplied to a Sugar Factory. 5. A perusal of Section 15 of the Act would show that the order assign ing or reserving any area has to be made after consulting the Factory and Cane-growers Co-operative Society. The ownership of the Cane vests with the procedure and normally he is entitled to sell the same to any one no likes. Naturally, he would like to sell the Sugarcane to the person who offers him the best price without any delay. The Act, however, imposes a restric tion upon him and by virtue of an order issued under sub-section (1) of Section 15 the Cane-grower is compelled to sell his sugarcane to the factory to whom his area has been assigned or reserved. The Legislature has enacted Section 17 which makes provision for immediate payment of price to the seller of sugarcane. Therefore, promptness with which price is paid is a very important factor which has to be kept in mind at the time of passing of an order assigned or reserving any area in favour of a sugar factory. The Cane-growers Co-operative Society is expected to watch the interest of the producers and it is for this reason that it is obligatory upon the Cane Commissioner to consult the Society before passing any order of assignment or reservation. The heading of Section 15 is declaration of reserved area and assigned area. The right and forum of appeal against the order of the Cane Commissioner made under sub-section (1) of Section 15 have been provided in sub-section (4) of the same section. It, therefore, follows that the State Government has also to hear the concerned factory and Cane-growers Co-operative Society while deciding an appeal. 6. Rule 22 gives some guidelines as to how the power of assigning or reserving any area has to be exercised by the Cane Commissioner. It men tions several factors which have to be taken into consideration. Apart from the distance of the area from the factory, the facility of transport, previous reservation and assignment orders, quality of cane to be crushed in the factory views of the Cane- growers Co-operative Society, arrangements made by the factory for payment of price etc. It men tions several factors which have to be taken into consideration. Apart from the distance of the area from the factory, the facility of transport, previous reservation and assignment orders, quality of cane to be crushed in the factory views of the Cane- growers Co-operative Society, arrangements made by the factory for payment of price etc. , in previous years and efforts made by the factory in developing the area have also to be taken into consideration. Sub-rule (b) lays emphasis upon facilities for transport which is also important inasmuch as in a given case an area may be at a shorter distance from one factory than another but on account of better facility of transport it may be more convenient for the Cane-growers to supply sugarcane to the factory which is at a greater distance. Similarly sub-rule (f), which makes the pay ment of price in earlier years relevant, is very important from the point of view of cane growers. If the factory has defaulted in payment of price and the dues of the Cane-growers are not paid for a long time, they would not be willing to supply their produce to such a factory. Prompt payment of price is of primary importance to the Cane-growers as it takes almost a year before sugarcane crop is ready for harvesting. The cane- growers who have nurtured their crop for about a year would not like to wait for further period a if they have made the supply to the sugar factory. Under rub-rule (h) effort made by the factory in developing the area for producing more and better quality of cane also becomes relevant. If a factory has invested heavy amount in developing an area as a result whereof the quality of sugar cane has improved, naturally it would like the said came to be supplied to its factory. The provisions of the Act and Rules show in unmistakable terms that the order for assignment or reservation of an area has to be passed after taking into consideration various factors and it cannot be based upon one solitary consideration. May be in a given case one single factor may far outweigh the effect of all other remaining factors. The provisions of the Act and Rules show in unmistakable terms that the order for assignment or reservation of an area has to be passed after taking into consideration various factors and it cannot be based upon one solitary consideration. May be in a given case one single factor may far outweigh the effect of all other remaining factors. For example, an area may be right at the gate of the Sugar Mill and in such a situation distance alone can be taken into consideration for assigning or reserving that area in favour of that Sugar Factory. It is for the authorities, who are experts in the field to take into consideration all the factors and after balancing them pass appropriate orders which best subserve the interest of the Sugar Fac tory and the Cane- growers. 7. The impugned order passed by the State Government shows that the Appellate Authority has decided the appeal relying upon only one factor namely, the distance of the purchase centres from the Sugar Mills and the remaining factors have been totally ignored. It is not mentioned as to what is the requirement of Rampur Sugar Factory and Ayodhya Sugar Mills, looking to their crushing capacity and the period for which they are likely to run. Similarly no details have been given as to what arrangements had been made by the two Sugar Factories in previous years for payment of cane price etc. , It is stated in the writ petition that Rampur Ganna Vikas Tatha Sahkari Samiti Ltd. (Cane-growers Co-operative Society) has passed a resolution on January 3, 1995 to the effect that purchase centres, namely, Shahbad-A, Shahbad-B, Sewani and Kharsol be assigned to Rampur Sugar Mills. Copy of this resolution has been filed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. It is mentioned in the resolution that the concerned cane-growers were not prepared to supply sugarcane to Ayodhya Sugar Mills under any circumstances as it does not make timely payment 01sugaioane price and the behaviour of the employees of the Mills was also not proper. It is further stated that if the Society makes effort to give parchis to the cane- growers to supply their cane to the aforesaid Mills, it will be strongly resemed. It is further stated that if the Society makes effort to give parchis to the cane- growers to supply their cane to the aforesaid Mills, it will be strongly resemed. It is also stated that for the season 1993-94 these very purchase centres were assigned in favour of Rampur Sugar Mills by the order of the Cane Com missioner dated November 9, 1993 and against the said order an appeal bad been preferred by Ayodhya Sugar Mills (respondent No. 4) which was dismissed. Copy of this order has been filed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition. Incident! y the appeal had been heard and decided by the same officer Sri Umesh Kumar Mittal, Joint Secretary, who has decided the appeal in the present year. Reference has also been made to a letter sent by the Secretary of the Sahkari Ganna Vikash Samiti Ltd. Bilari (Cane-growers Co-operative Society Supplying Sugarcane to Ayodhya Sugar Mills) which shows that final payment of sugarcane supplied for the season 1990-91 was made in May 1992. for the season 1991-92 was made in April, 1994, and for the season 1992-93 was made in July, 1994. Copy of this letter has been filed as Annexure 1 to the rejoinder affidavit. From this letter, it is sought to be shown that payment of price of sugarcane has been made by Ayodhya Sugar Mills after considerable delay. The petitioner has also filed some documents along with the rejoinder affidavit to show that the cane- growers are not willing to supply sugarcane to Ayodhya Sugar Mills and copies of these documents have been filed an Annexures 7 and 8. Annexures 9 and 10 to the rejoinder affidavit are the reports by the employees of Co-operative Cane Development Union Ltd. to the effect that the cane-growers had refused to accept the parchis for supplying cane to Ayodhya Sugar Mills. It is further asserted on behalf of the petitioner that even if the disputed four purchase centres are assigned to it, there will still be a short fall of about 11 lakh Qtls. sugarcane. On the contrary, the case of Ayodhya Sugar Mill is that the four purchase centres ware established by it in the year 1973-74. The State Government had assessed its requirement as 30 lakh Qtls. in the current season but the availability of sugarcane is 22. 08 lakh Qtls according to the assessment of the Cane Commissioner. sugarcane. On the contrary, the case of Ayodhya Sugar Mill is that the four purchase centres ware established by it in the year 1973-74. The State Government had assessed its requirement as 30 lakh Qtls. in the current season but the availability of sugarcane is 22. 08 lakh Qtls according to the assessment of the Cane Commissioner. It is also asserted in the counter-affidavit that Ayodhya Sugar Mills had moved an application on August 14, 1994 before the Cana Commissioner stating that it expected a demand of 45 lakh Qtls. of sugarcane in the current season and it was on account of low availability of sugarcane that a prayer was made for reserving the disputed purchase centres in its favour. These facts require thorough investigation and consideration. 8. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the State Government leaves no room for doubt that the factors which are relevant for assigning any area have not at all been taken into consideration. The order is passed only on one factor, namely the distance of the purchase centres from the Sugar Factory. The other factors which are relevant in terms of Rule 22 of the Rules have not at all bean taken into consideration. Tha order doss not indicate that the view of the Cane-growers Co-operative Society were ascer tained before passing the impugned order. In Hindustan Steel Lmd. v. A. K. Rai, AIR 1970 SC 1401 after refering to the classic work Judicial Review of Administrative Act by A. de Smith, the Apex Court rules that if a statutory Tribunal exercises its discretion on the basis of irrelevant considerations or without regard to relevant considerations, certiorari may be issued to quash its order. In these circumstances impugned order can not be sustained. 9. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned order of the State Government passed on December 24, 1994 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) is quashed. The Appellate Authority is directed to decide the appeal afresh in the light of the observations made above and in accordance with law. The appeal shall be decided after giving opportunity of hearing to Cane-growers Co-operative Society and all other necessary parties. 10. It is being made clear that it should not be understood that this court is expressing any opinion regarding merits of the claim of any party. The appeal shall be decided after giving opportunity of hearing to Cane-growers Co-operative Society and all other necessary parties. 10. It is being made clear that it should not be understood that this court is expressing any opinion regarding merits of the claim of any party. The Appellate Authority shall exercise his independent judgment after taking into consideration all the relevant factors mentioned in the Act and the Rules. It will also be open to the Appellate Authority to pass any interim order if it considers it necessary on the facts and circumstances of the present case. A representative of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 shall appear before the Appellate Authority of the State Government on February 21,1995. Office is directed to issue a certified copy of the judgment within two days. Petition allowed. .