JUDGEMENT 1. By means of this Writ Petition moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writs In the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the provision in clause 'ka' of the Notification dated 15-11-2003 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition), the order Issuing licence for Power Crusher of 1500 (1250) T.C.D. dated 17-02-2004 granted to respondent NO.4 (annexure 3 to the writ petition) and the order dated 22-01-2004 passed by respondent NO.2 (annexure 2 to the writ petition). The petitioner has also sought a writ In the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to estimate the requirement of cane of the petitioner on the basis of 6250 Tonnes crushing capacity duly acknowledged by the Central Government through Ministry of Industries under the Industry (Development Regulation) Act, 1951. The petitioner has further prayed to Issue a writ, order or direction 1(1 the nature of certiorari by means of which the order dated 25-9-2004 be quashed as it is manifestly Illegal and in violation of the statutory provisions. 2. The petitioner Is a Company under the Companies Act, 1956 and it owns a Sugar Factory at Kashipur in the State of Uttaranchal which was set up in the year 1936. The said Company is engaged in the manufacture, sale and supply of sugar. It Is revealed from the record that respondent No. 4 had submitted an application dated 25-07-2003 for grant of licence for Power Driven Crusher for the manufacture of Rab from Sugarcane. The said application, submitted under the Provisions of U.P. Khandsarl Sugar Manufacturer's Licensing Order, 1967 (hereinafter referred as the 1967 Order), was rejected by the Sugarcane Commissioner on 0109-2003 on two grounds. The first ground was that the application was not in accordance with the provisions of 1967 Order. According to the Sugarcane Commissioner, a Khandsarl Unit should be for the manufacture of sugar by open pan process, but the respondent NO.4 had not applied for any furnace and hence the application was not found In accordance with 1967 Order. Clause 2 (k) of the 1967 Order defines 'manufacturer' which means a person who uses a Power Crusher, Bel or Centrifugal in the process of manufacture of Khandsari sugar and includes a person who prepares Rab for conversion into Khandsari. Clause 2 (k) of the 1967 Order defines 'manufacturer' which means a person who uses a Power Crusher, Bel or Centrifugal in the process of manufacture of Khandsari sugar and includes a person who prepares Rab for conversion into Khandsari. This definition clearly reveals that a person who manufactures Khandsari sugar from Rab is a manufacturer for the purposes of 1967 Order. The respondent NO.4 submitted his application at that time to manufacture alcohol from the Rab manufactured from sugarcane juice. There was no provision in 1967 Order to grant a licence for the manufacture of alcohol from Rab and hence the application was not found in accordance with 1967 Order. The second ground mentioned by the Sugarcane Commissioner for rejecting the application of respondent No. 4 was that the application was not In accordance with the licensing polley of the Government 'for 'the year 2003-04. According to the Sugarcane Commissioner, as per the Licensing Policy of the Government, a new licence to Khandsari Unit could not be granted in the reserved area of the existing Sugar Mills. The State Government vide its order dated 15-11-2003 (annexure-13 to the petition) modified its earlier sugar policy wherein It was provided that new licence for Khandsari Unit could not be granted in the reserved area of existing Sugar Mills. As per the order dated 15-11-2003 a Provision was added empowering the State Government to relax the limitation mentioned in paragraph l(a) of the Government Order. Immediately after the amendment of the policy, the respondent NO.4 submitted an application dated 18-11-2003 for grant of licence for Rab manufacturing unit. According to the application of the respondent NO.4, he Intended to manufacture Rab from sugarcane juice. The said application was allowed by the Licensing Authority, i.e., Sugarcane Commissioner as per the annexure-3 order dated 17-02-2004. It is admitted by both the parties that the purposed site of the new unit of respondent No.4 falls In the reserved area of the Sugar Mill of the petitioner. The Sugarcane Commissioner and Government have taken a view that the new unit will not affect adequate supplies of sugarcane to the sugar mills and hence the limitation in para l(a) of annexure-13 could be relaxed. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has challenged the said orders by way of this petition. 3. The Sugarcane Commissioner and Government have taken a view that the new unit will not affect adequate supplies of sugarcane to the sugar mills and hence the limitation in para l(a) of annexure-13 could be relaxed. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the petitioner has challenged the said orders by way of this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the assumption of the Sugarcane Commissioner and the Government that the new Unit of respondent No. 4 would not affect the adequate supply of sugarcane to the petitioner sugar mill is factually incorrect and the decision to grant the licence to the 4th respondent is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and malafide. He further pointed out that according to the Section 4(3)(1) of U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961, the Sugarcane Commissioner can reject an application of grant of licence if he is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in public interest with a view :- (a) to regulating the manufacture of gur or rab by units; or (b) to avoiding uneconomic concentration of units in any area; or (c) to ensuring, in reserved areas, adequate supplies of sugarcane to a factory. It is contended that in view of the above provisions the Sugarcane Commissioner ought to have rejected the application of Respondent No.4. It is also contended that, though Annexure 13 order empowers the Government to grant new Power Crusher licence within 15 kilometers radius of existing sugar factory in relaxation of the general policy, before granting such licence, the Govt. is bound to consider whether the application for licence was to be rejected for any .of the reasons mentioned in Section 4(3)(i) of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961. However, while taking a decision to grant the licence to the 4th respondent, the Sugarcane. Commissioner did not consider as to whether the rejection of the application was necessary or expedient for any of the reasons mentioned in Section' 4(3)(i) of the U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961. According to the learned counsel the impugned order is vitiated by the failure on the part of the Sugarcane Commissioner to take into account and consider relevant aspects. According to the learned counsel the impugned order is vitiated by the failure on the part of the Sugarcane Commissioner to take into account and consider relevant aspects. It was further pointed out that the adequacy of the supply of sugarcane to the existing factory has to be considered with reference to the availability of sugarcane in the area reserved for such factory and not with reference to the availability of the sugarcane in the whole State. It was further contended that while passing the impugned order though the Sugarcane Commissioner considered the adequacy of supply of sugarcane to the existing sugar factories, it was not with reference to the availability of sugarcane in the area reserved for the petitioner's sugar mill. It was further contended that the Sugarcane Commissioner, on the other hand, considered the adequacy of supply of sugarcane with reference to the availability of sugarcane in whole of the State. 4" Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the above arguments and contended that the Sugarcane Commissioner did not commit any error in referring to the data at State level and the average crushing by all Sugar factories at the State level. The average Indicated by the Cane Commissioner includes the petitioner's data and It Is not the case of the petitioner that he had crushed more. than the average. It was further contended that Sugar factories can be permitted by the Sugarcane Commissioner under the provision of Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Act, 1953 to buy from reserved area of other sugar factories, if during seasons there Is a sh9rtage faced by the factories. It was further contended by the respondent No. 4 that the unit of respondent" No. 4 was not given any specific reserved area and that he is entitled to purchase cane from reserved/assigned area of any sugar factory in Uttaranchal on the basis of permits. It was further pointed out that the petitioner had submitted an appeal to the Chief Minister and Secretary Cane Development and Sugar Industry; Uttaranchal Govt. praying for cancelling the licence granted to respondent No. 4 by the licensing authority (i.e. Sugarcane Commissioner). The said appeal was considered rejected by the appellate authority /Government. It was further pointed out that the petitioner had submitted an appeal to the Chief Minister and Secretary Cane Development and Sugar Industry; Uttaranchal Govt. praying for cancelling the licence granted to respondent No. 4 by the licensing authority (i.e. Sugarcane Commissioner). The said appeal was considered rejected by the appellate authority /Government. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 further contended that the appellate order Is relevant and has to be seen in view of Section 4(4) which makes it final and also In view of the doctrine of merger. This order was passed after hearing the parties and after application of the mind by the competent authority. Learned counsel for the respondents further contended that a perusal of Section 4(3) would reveal that grant of licence is the rule and rejection is the exception. 5. Before examining the respective contentions of the parties, It would be proper to examine the legal position In this regard. The Sugar Industry is a controlled industry in the sense that Government has a control on the sugarcane production, distribution and prices as also on production and marketing of the finished product sugar. There are Central and State legislations on the subject. The first one we may refer to Is Sugarcane Act, 1934 (Central Act). It regulates the price of sugarcane intended to use in the sugar factories. It empowers the State Govt. to declare an area as controlled area and also to fix a minimum price for purchase of sugarcane in that area. There is another Central order, i.e., Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 which was issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. The Control Order defines the 'factory' as premises where sugar is manufactured by vacuum pan process. Clause 2(j) of Order 1966 defines the 'reserved area' which means any area where sugarcane Is grown and reserved for a factory under sub-clause (l)(a) of clause 6. Clause 6 of Order 1966 defines the powers to regulilte distribution and movement of sugarcane. The Central Govt. is authorized to notify any reserved area where sugarcane is grown for a factory having regard to the crushing capacity of the factory and availability of sugarcane in that reserved area and the need for production of sugar with a view to enabiing the factory to produce the quantity of sugarcane required by it. This Clause further empowers Central Govt. is authorized to notify any reserved area where sugarcane is grown for a factory having regard to the crushing capacity of the factory and availability of sugarcane in that reserved area and the need for production of sugar with a view to enabiing the factory to produce the quantity of sugarcane required by it. This Clause further empowers Central Govt. to determine the quantity of sugarcane required by a factory in any crushing year. This Order also empowers the Central Govt. to licence power crushers and khandsari units and to regulate the purchase of sugar by them. Under clause 11 of the Order 1966, the Central Govt. has a right to delegate the powers under clause 6 and other clauses to the State Govt. or any Officer or any authority of a State Govt. The Central Govt. vide its order GSR 1127/ESS. Commodities/Sugarcane dated 16-07-1966 had delegated the powers under clauses 6, 7, 8 & 9 of the Order 1966 to the State Government. U.P. Khandsarl Sugar Manufacturer's Licensing Order, 1967 was issued by the Govt. of U.P. under such delegated powers. The preamble of U.P. Khandsarl Sugar manufacturer's licensing order 1967 Indicates that the Central Govt. had delegated under clause 11 of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966, the powers under clauses 6 7 8 & 9 of that order to the State Govt. This U.P. Control Order of 1967 was issued under such delegated powers for regulating the manufacture of khandsari sugar. This control order defines the 'reserved area' for the factory as defined in Clause 6(1) of Sugarcane Control Order, 1966. The 'assigned area' has been defined under clause 2 sub-clause (a) of the Control Order, 1967 which means the area assigned to a factory under Section 15 of the Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953. Clause 3 of the said .U.P. Control Order, 1967 prohibits the manufacturing of khandsari sugar without obtaining licence from the licensing authority. There is yet another order which is known as U.P. Restriction on Sugarcane -Purchase Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred as U.P. Order 1966). Preamble of this order also indicates that the Central Government had under Clause 11 of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 delegated to the State Govt. the powers under clauses 6, 7 and 8 of that Order. There is yet another order which is known as U.P. Restriction on Sugarcane -Purchase Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred as U.P. Order 1966). Preamble of this order also indicates that the Central Government had under Clause 11 of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 delegated to the State Govt. the powers under clauses 6, 7 and 8 of that Order. The U.P. Control Order 1966 was Issued under such delegated powers for regulating and increasing the supply of sugarcane and for securing equitable distribution thereof. Under this order, no sugarcane was to be purchased by a power crusher or for manufacture of sugar khandsari etc. except under' and in accordance with a permit issued by or on behalf of the Cane Commissioner. There Is another enactment of the State of U.P., i.e., U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953. This Act was intended to regulate the supply and purchase of the sugarcane required for the use in sugar factory, gur and khandsari manufacturing units. It also provides for declaration of 'assigned area' and 'reserved area' under Section 15 of the Act which is extracted hereunder ;_ "15. Declaration of reserved area and assigned areas.- (1) Without prejudice to any order made under Clause (d) of sub-section (2) of Section 16, the Cane Commissioner may, after consulting the Factory and Canegrowers' Co-operative Society in the manner to be prescribed : (a) reserve any area (hereinafter called the reserved area); and (b) assign any area (hereinafter called an assigned area), for the purposes of the supply of cane to a factory in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 during [one or more crushing seasons as may be specified) and may likewise at any time cancel such order or alter the boundaries of an area so reserved or assigned. (2) 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. (3) Where any area has been declared as assigned area for a factory, the occupier or such factory shall purchase such quantity of cane grown in that area and offered for sale to the factory as may be determined by the Cane Commissioner . (3) Where any area has been declared as assigned area for a factory, the occupier or such factory shall purchase such quantity of cane grown in that area and offered for sale to the factory as may be determined by the Cane Commissioner . (4) An appeal shall lie to the State Government against the order of the Cane Commissioner passed under sub-section (1). Section 16 of the said Act further provides that the State Govt. may for maintaining supplies, regulate the distribution, sale or purchase of cane In a reserved area or assigned area and may also regulate purchase of sugarcane from areas other than reserved area or assigned area. Section 28 of this Act empowers the State Government to frame the rules under the provisions of this Act. In pursuance of the said power conferred under Section 28, the State of U.P. framed the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred as Rules 1954)., 6. Now we will examine the contentions of the parties in the above mentioned legal background. 7. The respondent NO.4 applied for licence to manufacture rab with one power crusher with a capacity of 1500 TCD with open pan steam boiling system under U.P. Cane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961. The licensing authority granted licence to respondent No.4 for one power crusher of a capacity of 1250 TCD. The Sugarcane Commissioner, while allowing the application of the respondent No. 4 for a new rab unit in the reserved area of the petitioner observed that the total cane production in the State is 750 lakh qtls out of which about 55% cane is crushed by sugar mills. Ordinarily there is no possibility of adverse effect on the cane supply to sugar mills on granting licence to the unit of the respondent No.4. It was further observed that the farmers will get another option to sell their cane to the .crusher. The respondent NO.4 preferred an appeal before the State Govt. alleging therein that though he applied for licence to establish a crusher of 1500 TCD capacity, the licensing authority, Sugarcane Commissioner, granted the permission to install a crusher of 1250 TCD capacity only. The respondent No. 4 requested the State Govt. under Section 4 sub-section 4 to amend the capacity of the power crusher from 1250 TCD to 1500 TCD. The petitioner also preferred a representation to the Govt. The respondent No. 4 requested the State Govt. under Section 4 sub-section 4 to amend the capacity of the power crusher from 1250 TCD to 1500 TCD. The petitioner also preferred a representation to the Govt. against the order dated 17-02-2004 of the Sugarcane Commissioner granting the licence to Respondent NO.4. The petitioner's representation was disposed of by the State Govt. along with the appeal filed by respondent NO.4. The State Govt. observed while deciding the aforesaid representation / appeal of petitioner that the cane area of Kashipur Factory is 9805 hectares which gives cane production of about 51.53 lakh qtls. As against this, 41.43 lakh qtls was bonded to supply to the sugar mills. Accordingly, In the area of Bazpur Sugar Factory 11,155 hectares land Is available for the cane. production and It produces 64.58 lakh qtls. As against this, 42.74 lakh qtls cane was bonded in favour of the Bazpur Sugar Factory. It was further observed by the Govt. that there was a difference of 30 lakh qtls between production and bonding In the area of two factories In. Kashlpur & Bazpur and this can be made available to the new rab unit. Perusal of the provisions of the law reveals that the khandsari units and rab units have to exist In a reserved area of some sugar factory. Even If they are situated outside the area, they would have to purchase cane from the reserved area. Clause 7(a), (b) and (c) of Control Order 1966 as well as Section 27(1) read with Section 16(1), (2) (d) read with Section 18 of U.P. Sugarcane Act, 1953 and the U.P. Control Order, 1966 reveal that such units can purchase sugarcane In reserved area if they have a licence or a permit for purchase of cane. Under clause 5 of the Purchase Order 1966, the rab units having a valid licence under the Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 are entitled to a permit without an application. Such permit can be cancelled or suspended by the competent authority If he feels that the cancellation and suspension is necessary or expedient In the interest of public to regulate the supply of sugarcane or for securing adequate distribution. Section 4 of U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 reveals that the grant of a licence is the rule and rejection Is the exception. Section 4 of U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 reveals that the grant of a licence is the rule and rejection Is the exception. The Sugarcane Commissioner has referred In his order to the State level data and the average crushing of all the sugar factories of Uttaranchal. The average includes petitioner's data of crushing of the sugarcane. The annexures CA-5 and CA-6 to the counter affidavit of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 reveal that data of cane availability and cane crushed by the petitioner's factory as well as of the whole State were available before the Cane Commissioner at the time of granting the licence to respondent No.4. The Sugarcane Commissioner had applied his mind to the data relating to cane availability to the petitioner also. Section 4 provides that the application for licence shall not be rejected except where an application has not been made by the prescribed date or in the prescribed form or Is incomplete In any respect or Is not accompanied by proof of reqUisite fees including late fees. Admittedly the application of respondent was not liable to be rejected on any of the above mentioned grounds. Perusal of the record reveals that the Sugarcane Commissioner had considered the cane availability in the petitioner's reserved' area as well as in the State and the Appellate authority has also considered this aspect. Section 4 sub-section 4 provides as under :- "4. Any person aggrieved by an order of the Sugar Commissioner under sub-section (3 ) may, within thirty days from the date of intimation of the said order to him, prefer an appeal to the State Government, whose decision thereon shall be final. The order passed by the State Govt. is final and the State Govt. has passed the order after hearing' both the parties, after going through the relevant record and full application of mind. It is settled principle of law that if an order of an inferior authority is subjected to, an appeal or revision before a superior authority and If in such proceedings, an order is passed by the superior authority determining the rights of the parties, the order of the superior authority would supersede the order of the inferior authority. It is settled principle of law that if an order of an inferior authority is subjected to, an appeal or revision before a superior authority and If in such proceedings, an order is passed by the superior authority determining the rights of the parties, the order of the superior authority would supersede the order of the inferior authority. The juristic justification for such doctrine of merger is based on common law principle that there cannot be at one and the same time more than one operative order governing the subject matter. The order of the inferior authority is deemed to have lost its identity and ,have merged with the order of the superior authority. (see Amba Bai Vs. Gopal 2001 (5) SCC 570). The Sugarcane Commissioner as well as the State Govt. in appeal/representation against the order of the Sugarcane Commissioner under Section 4(4) of U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act, 1961 considered the adequacy of supply to the petitioner's existing sugar factory. We do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sugarcane Commissioner had not considered the adequacy of supply to the petitioner's existing sugar factory. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the assumption of the Sugarcane Commissioner that supply of sugar to the petitioner's sugar mill is not likely to be affected, is factually wrong. He further contended that the perusal of the annexure 4 to the writ petition clearly reveals that the requirement of sugarcane in respect of the sugar mills in Uttaranchal for the crushing season 2003-04 was estimated by the Sugarcane Commissioner. The estimated requirement of the petitioner's sugar mill, i.e., DSM Sugar Factory at Kashipur was 64 lakh qtls. It was further pointed out that as per annexure-7 order dated 6th November, 2003 of the Sugarcane Commissioner, Uttaranchal, the total production of sugarcane in the area reserved for the petitioner's sugar mill in the State of Uttaranchal during the year 2003-04 was 51.53 lakh qtls. Annexure-8 order dated 13th November, 2003 of the Sugarcane Commissioner, U.P. shows that the total production of the sugarcane In the area reserved for the petitioner's sugar mills in the State of U.P. during the crushing season 2003-04 was 43.28 (37.31 + 5.97 lakh qtls). Annexure-8 order dated 13th November, 2003 of the Sugarcane Commissioner, U.P. shows that the total production of the sugarcane In the area reserved for the petitioner's sugar mills in the State of U.P. during the crushing season 2003-04 was 43.28 (37.31 + 5.97 lakh qtls). Thus the total sugarcane production in the areas reserved for the petitioners sugar mills in the State of Uttaranchal and In the State of U.P. for the crushing season 2003-04 was 94.81 lakh qtls. It was further pointed out that annexure CA-6 to the counter affidavit of the State shows that the quantity of the sugarcane crushed In the petitioner's sugar mill during the year 2003-04 was only 50.41 lakh qtls. Moreover, even though the estimated production was 94.81 lakh qtls of sugarcane, only 51.41 lakh qtls of sugarcane were actually available for petitioner's Sugar Factory during the year 2003-04. This implies that even without coming Into existence of the fourth respondent's unit, there was not adequate supply of sugarcane to the petitioner's sugar factory. It was further contended that In these circumstances, the assumption of Sugarcane Commissioner that grant of licence to the respondent No. 4 will not affect the adequate supply of sugarcane to the petitioner's factory was, totally baseless and also arbitrary. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the above argument and contended that the entire sugarcane of reserved area is not bonded for the sugar factories. Generally, the reserved area has much greater availability than the estimated requirement of sugarcane of sugar factories under section 12 of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953. Even In the petitioner's area the sugarcane availability is 94 lakh quintals, whereas its estimated requirement is only 64 lacs quintals. Additionally, there is a bonding policy which is statutory and it fixes a quantity of sugarcane to be supplied by each sugarcane grower and 85 percent of such quantity alone can be bonded. It was further contended that all bonded sugarcane has to be purchased by the factory. Therefore, sugar factories do not bond the entire 85 percent sugarcane. Even the crushing capacity of the factory is generally utilized only upto 75 to 80 percent and not 100 percent. It was further contended that there is sufficient un bonded sugarcane In the petitioner's area as also adjacent reserved area of Bazpur Sugar Factory as has been held by the appellate authority. Even the crushing capacity of the factory is generally utilized only upto 75 to 80 percent and not 100 percent. It was further contended that there is sufficient un bonded sugarcane In the petitioner's area as also adjacent reserved area of Bazpur Sugar Factory as has been held by the appellate authority. The Government has observed that 30 lakh quintal is unbonded In the assigned area of two sugar factories situated in Kashlpur and Bazpur area. The surplus sugarcane can be made available to the Rab unit. 10. The U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 provides a mechanism for reasonable, necessary, sufficient and continuous supply of sugarcane to the sugar factories In the crushing season, keeping In mind the interest of the sugarcane growers, cane grower's cooperative societies, sugar factories and also Inter-se interest of the sugar factories. The supply of sugarcane to the sugar factories In the quantity which may be reasonably required' by them for production in a particular season or seasons is to be regulated by the provisions of this Act, A duty has been cast upon the Sugarcane Commissioner under Sections 11, 12 & 15 of the U.P. Act 1953 to require the occupier of each factory to furnish in the manner and by the date specified In an order issued by the Sugarcane Commissioner, an estimate of the quantity of sugarcane which would be required by a factory during such crushing season or seasons as may be specified In the order, The Sugarcane Commissioner, therefore, has to issue an order by which he would make the occupier of every factory to furnish the estimated quantity of sugarcane as per requirement of the sugar factory for a particular crushing season or seasons, which should be done in a manner and by the .date specified by the Sugarcane Commissioner. The Sugarcane Commissioner is obliged to examine every such estimate and has the liberty to modify the same and with such modifications, if any, the publication of the estimate is done for the purposes of making it known to all sugar factories that the estimate prepared by them for the requisite quantity of sugarcane for a particular crushing season or seasons has been accepted by the Sugarcane Commissioner with or without modification. In case, any sugar factory is not satisfied with the estimate so modified or otherwise, it may file a revision before the prescribed authority. The State Government is the prescribed authority under Rule 23-A of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1957. The sugar factory may file a revision within fourteen days from the date of order. After the publication of estimates, the survey etc. shall be made under section 18 of the U.P. Act 1953. The combined reading of sections 11, 12 and is would lead to a conclusion that at the time of declaration of reserved area and assigned area under section 15, the estimate published under section 12 shall be the basis for consideration by the Sugarcane Commissioner for the purpose of quantifying the requirement of sugarcane for every factory. In the present case, the Sugarcane Commissioner assessed 64 lacs quintal as the requirement of the petitioner's factory. The petitioner has not filed any appeal against the said estimate of requirement of sugarcane published by the Sugarcane Commissioner under section 12(3) U.P. Act 1953 read with Rule 23-A of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954. The petitioner cannot now say that his capacity has not been examined In the light of the provisions of the Act. Thus, the order has become final. The petitioner could get only 51.41 lakh quintals for crushing season during the year 2003-2004. Even though the Sugarcane Commissioner has assessed that there was a total production of 94.81 lakh quintals, perusal of the record reveals that the petitioner had not applied to the Sugarcane Commissioner to provide additional sugarcane to his sugar factory. Under the provisions of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953, it is always within the authority of the Sugarcane Commissioner to provide additional sugarcane to the sugar factory which bona-fide faces the shortage of sugarcane and requires more sugarcane for producing sugar during the particular crushing season or seasons. Rule 21(2) of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 also provides that the Sugarcane Commissioner may, for any special reason, entertain an application for reservation or assignment of an area, made after the commencement of a crushing season. Rule 21(2) of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 also provides that the Sugarcane Commissioner may, for any special reason, entertain an application for reservation or assignment of an area, made after the commencement of a crushing season. There may be occasions when one sugar factory is not able to crush the entire sugarcane available in assigned or reserved area and at the same time another sugar factory is having the shortage of sugarcane in its reserved area during the crushing season. In such situations the Sugarcane Commissioner can very well assign any specified area out of the reserved area of the latter factory to the former factory. It is also pertinent to mention here that the reserved area of a sugar factory is not permanent and a sugar factory cannot claim that the area reserved for a particular year would remain with it permanently. The reserved area is allocated to a particular sugar factory for the crushing season so that in the next crushing season it may be changed or modified by the Sugarcane Commissioner. The Sugarcane Commissioner is empowered to modify or alter the reserved area even during the same crushing season if exigencies of situation require so. The same principle applies to the assigned area. The petitioner 'lad not applied to the Sugarcane Commissioner for additional sugarcane for the crushing season in the year 2003-2004. It leads to the Inference that the petitioner was not able to crush more than 51.41 lakh quintals. The Sugarcane Commissioner and the State Government were Justified in observing that In the year 2003 '2004 there was a difference of 30 lakh quintals between the production and the bonding of two sugar mills situated in Kashipur and Bazpur ncluding the sugar mill of the petitioner. Thus, we do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sugarcane Commissioner and the Govt. erred in taking the view that grant of licence to respondent No. 4 will not affect adequate supply of sugarcane to the petitioner's sugar mill. Whether the grant of licence to respondent No. 4 will affect adequate supply to the petitioner's sugarmill or not is essentially a question of fact which cannot be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question was decided by the Sugarcane Commissioner and the Govt. Whether the grant of licence to respondent No. 4 will affect adequate supply to the petitioner's sugarmill or not is essentially a question of fact which cannot be decided in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The question was decided by the Sugarcane Commissioner and the Govt. with reference to materials available before them. The Govt. have passed a very detailed order referring to factual details which supported their decision. Unless the decision of the Govt. is arbitrary or perverse this Court will not be justified in interfering the said decision. The petitioner has not succeeded to establish that the decision of the Govt. is arbitrary or perverse. On the other hand, having regard to the materials placed on record, we are satisfied that the order was passed by the Govt. after properly considering all the relevant aspects and that the order is supported by proper and valid reasoning. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner's sugar factory was set up in the year 1936 with the initial capacity of 700 T.C.D. and it was increased to 2500 TCD in the year 1996. The capacity of the sugar factory was later raised upto 4000 T.C.D. It was contended that the capacity of the petitioner's factory further increased upto 6250 T.C.D. w.e.f. 28-3-2003. It was further contended that the Sugarcane Commissioner assessed the requirement of the petitioner as 64 lakh quintals on the basis of 4000 T.C.D. for the year 2003-2004 instead of 6250 T.C.D. Learned counsel for the respondents refuted the above contention and contended that the petitioner's claim of enhancement of capacity to 6250 is incorrect. It was further contended that under the conditions of the licence granted under the U.P. Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories Licensing Order, 1969, the petitioner was required to obtain prior approval of the State Government for increasing the capacity. In para 4 of the counter affidavit of the respondent No. 1 to 3, it has been stated that the petitioner's factory has a capacity of 4000 T.C.D. and that no permission has been taken by the petitioner under the relevant sugar legislation for increasing the capacity to 6250 T.C.D. The condition laid down in crushing licence clearly mentioned that no enhancement In the crushing capacity shall be effected without prior permission of the State Government. The petitioner never sought permission or approval from the State Government to enhance the crushing capacity of the sugar factory. No such permission was granted under the U.P. Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories Licensing Order, 1969 and other Sugar legislations. The petitioner had flied IEM (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) with Government of India. This IEM was issued by the Government of India under Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951. The State Government had not issued any licence on the basis of the said expansion in terms of the licence and under the relevant State Sugar Legislation. The petitioner has not flied any document which shoWs that the permission for extension upto 6250 T.C.D. has been granted by the State Government under relevant sugar legislation. The respondent NO.3- Sugarcane Commissioner assessed his requirement of 64 lacs quintals on the basis of 4000 T.C. D. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the said assessment, the petitioner could have filed a revision against the assessment of requirement made by the respondent NO.3- Sugarcane Commissioner, under section 12(3) of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act 1953 read with Rule 23A of the U.P. Rules 1954 made under the aforesaid Act. The petitioner had not challenged the assessment of requirement before the revislonal authority. Therefore, the assessment made by the Sugarcane Commissioner has become final. The petitioner cannot challenge the order of assessment based on 4000 T.C.D. In this writ petition. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that according to Clause 3 of 'Gur' (Regulation of Use) Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'Order 1968'), no person shall use 'gur' (Rab) for the preparation of alcoholic liquor and, therefore, if the respondent No.4 uses the Rab manufactured in the new "nit for the purpose of manufacturing alcoholic ilquor, it will be in violation of the Order 1968. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 refuted the contention and submitted that as per the proviso to Clause 3 of the Gur (Regulation of Use) Order, 1968, the Central Government has the power to permit the use of the Gur for the purposes of :- (a) use In tobacco Industry; (b) use in leather tanning industry; (c) use in chemical Industry and (d) any other industrial use. According to learned counsel for the respondent No.4, nothing prevents the -respondent No.4 from approaching the Central Government for permission for the use of the Rab for any of the purposes mentioned above. At any rate, perusal of the application clearly reveals that the petitioner had applied only to manufacture Rab in the new "nit and he had not Indicated in the application that he would use the Rab manufactured in the new unit for the preparation of "alcoholic liquor. The application as well as the counter affidavit Indicate that the respondent No.4 has no intention to use the Rab manufactured in the Unit, for preparation of alcoholic liquor as it is prohibited under the Order 1968. Even assuming that respondent No.4 may use the Rab for preparation of alcoholic iquor in violation of law, the remedy is not to challenge the licence to manufacture Rab but to challenge the Illegal use of the Rab if and when It happens. As such, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner Is not sustainable. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Sugarcane Commissioner while granting the licence to the respondent NO.4 to manufacture the Rab from sugarcane had observed that another option shall become available to the farmers for sugarcane supply. It was contended that this was an irrelevant consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the observations made by the Apex Court in Ganesh Sugar Works Vs. State of Haryana reported in 1987(4) S.C.C. p/604. This case relates to the State of Punjab & Haryana. In this case, the State Government refused to grant or renew the licences to Khandsari units located within the areas reserved for sugar factories, having regard to bad seasonal conditions resulting in fall in production. The order of refusal to grant or renew the licences to Khandsari units was challenged before the Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when, on account of bad seasonal condition, there is a fall the production of sugarcane in some years, restrictions have to be imposed on the purchase of sugarcane by Khandsari units in areas reserved for sugar factories. When the seasonal conditions in the State where indeed very bad, it was obligatory on the part of the State Government to altogether ban the purchase of sugarcane by Khandsari units in areas reserved for sugar factories. When the seasonal conditions in the State where indeed very bad, it was obligatory on the part of the State Government to altogether ban the purchase of sugarcane by Khandsari units in areas reserved for sugar factories. While upholding the order of the Government, the Supreme Court held that the experience showed that Khandsari units are in a better position to tap the growers of sugarcane and it became necessary for the Government to reserve such areas for sugar factories. Otherwise, sugar mills would have to remain idle for long periods being unable to withstand the competition from Khandsari units in reaching sugarcane growers. The Hon'ble Supreme Court viewed the matter from another angle also. The recovery of sugar from the sugarcane ranges between 9.5% to 11.5% In the case of Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories while such recovery In the case of Khandsari units is hardly 5 to 6 percent. In these circumstances, it was observed that it is advantageous to divert as much sugarcane as possible to sugar Industries instead of Khandsari units. The above observations of the Supreme Court have no relevance in the present case. There is no scarcity of the sugarcane in the reserved area in this case. The requirement of the petitioner's factory had been assessed as 64 lakh quintals, whereas the production of sugarcane in the Kashipur area as a whole is about 94 lakh quintals. Thus, there is surplus sugarcane available for the Khandsari units in the reserved area. in case the Khandsarl units are not allowed to manufacture the Rab, the sugarcane growers will have to face problem for selling the surplus sugarcane. The Sugarcane Commissioner was absolutely justified in observing that another option will become available to the farmers for sugarcane supply. We do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sugarcane Commissioner based his decision on an irrelevant consideration. 14. According to the policy of the Uttaranchal Government, as contained in the order dated 30-06-2001 (Annexure 12), no new licence of any Khandsari Unit shall be granted in the reserved area or pocket village of Sugar Mill and there would be no restriction of granting new licence in unreserved area which is outside 15 Kms. radius of the nearest Sugar Mill. The above-mentioned order dated 30-06-2001 declared the licensing policy for the crushing season 20012002. radius of the nearest Sugar Mill. The above-mentioned order dated 30-06-2001 declared the licensing policy for the crushing season 20012002. But in the licensing policy for the crushing season 2003-2004 contained in Government Order dated 15-11-2003 (Annexure 13), after paragraph l(a) the following proviso was added : "But, in case any Sugar Mill decides not to run in a particular year or in the estimation of Cane and Sugar Commissioner, the proposed Unit can be run after meeting the requirement of Sugar Mill and the Owner of the Unit assures to pay Statutory Minimum Price notified by the Government of India then on the recommendation of Cane and Sugar Commissioner, the State Government may consider relaxation in the aforesaid limitation." The application of the fourth respondent was submitted in the crushing season 2003-2004. From the materiais placed on record, It is seen that in the light of the above-quoted proviso under paragraph 1(a) of the Government Order dated 15-11-2003, the Sugar Commissioner sent a letter dated 20-01-2004 to the Government recommending the grant of licence to the fourth respondent relaxing the restriction contained in paragraph l(a). On the basis of the said recommendation of the Sugar Commissioner, Government Issued Annexure 2 letter dated 22-01-2004 to the Sugar Commissioner relaxing the restriction mentioned in paragraph l(a) of the Government Order dated 15-11-2003 in the case of the proposed power crushing unit of the fourth respondent. Pursuant to Annexure 2 Government letter dated 22-01-2004, the Sugar Commissioner who is the licensing Authority, issued Annexure 3 licence on 17-02-2004. Hence the impugned licence was not issued against the policy of the Govt. or in violation of any law. The Impugned licence is issued by the Competent Authority. The licence cannot be said to have been issued in violation of the policy of the Government, as the policy itself stated that the Government, on the recommendation of the Cane and Sugar Commissioner, is competent to relax the restriction contained in paragraph l(a) of the Government Order dated 15-11-2003. In this case, on the recommeridation of the Cane arid Sugar Commissioner, the Government relaxed paragraph l(a) in the case of the proposed unit of the fourth respondent. In this case, on the recommeridation of the Cane arid Sugar Commissioner, the Government relaxed paragraph l(a) in the case of the proposed unit of the fourth respondent. It Is on the basis of such relaxation that the Sugar Commissioner and the licensing Authority Issued licence to the fourth respondent, even though the proposed unit is going to be established within the reserved area of the petitioner's sugar mill. 15. However, it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an earlier application of the fourth respondent for Khandsari licence had been rejected by the Licensing Authority on 01-09-2003 and thereafter, it was due to the pressure and influence exerted by the fourth respondent that the Government Incorporated a proviso in the policy for the crushing season 20032004 in order to favour the fourth respondent. On that basis, learned counsel contended that the impugned action of the Government and the Sugar Commissioner is malafide. We do not find any merit in this contention. The new policy was applicable not only to the respondent No.4, but also to other persons. There is no material on record to show that the policy was amended at the behest of the respondent NO.4. 16. It is also to be noted that under Section 4(3) (i) of U.P. Sugarcane (Purchase Tax) Act 1961, the Sugarcane Commissioner can reject an application for licence only if he is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do in public interest. Hence there is heavy burden on the part of the petitioner to establish that it was necessary or expedient to reject the application of respondent NO.4 in public interest. The petitioner has miserably failed to discharge the said burden. The Sugarcane Commissioner and the Govt. were of the opinion that it was not necessary or expedient to reject the application in public interest. We do not find valid and sufficient grounds to take a different view. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merit and that it is liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.