JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Dhruv Mathur, Sri Raghvendra Singh for the respondent sugar mill, M/s Kesar Enterprises Ltd., and the learned Counsel for the State for respondents No. 1 and 2. Appearance has been put in on behalf of respondent No. 4, by Sri Pushkar Baghel. 2. Since short counter-affidavit has been filed by contesting private sugar mill, with the consent of the parties’ Counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage. 3. The order dated 21.3.07 passed by the Cane Commissioner, U.P., by means of which he has re-allocated nine cane centers, namely, Gudiya, Kathariya, Silijagir, Nadeli, Arsiabojh, Boora Bahadurpur, Amariya, Kundara-A, Kundara-B, to the respondent sugar mill, superseding his earlier order of reservation dated 28.10.06, under which these centers were reserved for the petitioner sugar mill, is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 4. The brief facts relevant for decision of the controversy involved, are, that the Cane Commissioner, while passing the reservation order on 28.10.07,on determination of cane requirement, reserved/assigned various cane centers to the petitioner sugar mill as well as to the respondent sugar mill. These allocations were made after taking into consideration the crushing capacity per day of the sugar mills and the possible requirement of sugarcane, which was likely to be consumed by the respective sugar mills during the crushing season. 5. There is no dispute that while passing the reservation order, the Cane Commissioner took into account the estimated requirement as determined under Section 12 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in respect of sugar mills and on the said basis, the respondent sugar mill was estimated with a requirement of 115.56 lac quintals of sugarcane for crushing season 2006-07 on 28.10.07. 6. The respondent sugar mill, not being satisfied with the reservation order, so passed, and on being particularly aggrieved by the aforesaid reservation of nine cane centers in favour of the petitioner sugar mill, preferred an appeal under Section 15 of the Act before the State Government, which appeal, after hearing the pleadings of the parties, was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 20.12.2006. The respondent sugar mill, still feeling aggrieved, challenged the aforesaid order by filing a writ petition bearing number 639 (MS) of 2007 on 31.1.2007. The respondent sugar mill, still feeling aggrieved, challenged the aforesaid order by filing a writ petition bearing number 639 (MS) of 2007 on 31.1.2007. It is common case of the parties that no interim order was passed in the said writ petition in favour of the respondent sugar mill and, therefore, the reservation order, as originally passed, remained intact. 7. During pendency of the writ petition, the respondent sugar mill moved an application dated 7.3.07 before the Cane Commissioner saying that the Cane requirement of sugar mill should be revised in view of the revisional order passed by the State Government in proceedings under Section 12 of the Act, wherein a direction has been issued that the said requirement should be considered by taking into account the capacity of crushing as 7200 TCD i.e., 129.60 lac quintals. The application clarified that since in revision, the revisional authority had agreed in principle that cane requirement of the respondent sugar mill should be based on crushing capacity of 7200 TCD and the matter was remanded for the purpose, therefore, the revision of cane requirement be accordingly made. On moving of the said application, the petitioner was also issued a notice intimating about filing of the said application, in pursuance of which, the petitioner appeared on 16.3.2007 before the Cane Commissioner and on that date arguments were advanced on the said application. After hearing the parties, the Cane Commissioner has passed the impugned order. 8. On moving of the said application, the petitioner was also issued a notice intimating about filing of the said application, in pursuance of which, the petitioner appeared on 16.3.2007 before the Cane Commissioner and on that date arguments were advanced on the said application. After hearing the parties, the Cane Commissioner has passed the impugned order. 8. Sri Dhruv Mathur, assailing the aforesaid order, raised following points, namely, (i) The Cane Commissioner was having no jurisdiction or authority to revise the cane requirement on the basis of the alleged crushing capacity of 7200 TCD and that, in fact, even though this capacity has not been accepted by the revisional authority nor the Cane Commissioner has taken away the centers in question on the basis of any revised crushing capacity being determined by him, but even then the reservation order has been reviewed and modified; (ii) The application dated 7.3.07 itself nowhere says that the respondent sugar mill was having any acute shortage of sugarcane nor the order impugned says so, and, therefore, the Cane Commissioner was having no authority to interfere with the original reservation order; (iii) The application did not anywhere make any mention for revision of the requirement of sugarcane for the crushing season but it only said that since the cane requirement of the sugar mill had been fixed as 115.56 lac quintals on the crushing capacity of 6420 TCD and since there was a positive direction by the revisional authority that it should be based on crushing capacity of 7200 TCD, therefore, requirement be determined as such but without asserting that the sugar mill was facing any acute shortage of sugarcane in the present crushing season, so as to bring it within the class of ‘no cane status’. (iv) No reasonable opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner as it was not mentioned in the notice that their cane centers either in particular or in general, shall be subjected to any change or modification in pursuance of the said application and it merely provided an opportunity for resisting against the determination of requirement of sugarcane on the basis of the revised crushing capacity of 7200 TCD and, therefore, the petitioner could not get any opportunity to defend the reservation of these nine centers in its favour. (v) The conduct of the respondent sugar mill itself speaks that it is a device adopted by the sugar mill to get the aforesaid centers back under the direction issued by the revisional authority and to increase its allocation of sugarcane, though no such shortage was being faced by the respondent sugar mill. In support of this plea, it has also been submitted that respondent sugar mill failed to get the original order of reservation dated 28.10.2006. modified in appeal, which was dismissed by the State Government and thereafter could not succeed in getting an interim order in the writ petition filed against the said order but during pendency of the writ petition the present application was moved asking for the same very centers to be reallocated to the respondent sugar mill, which prayer, in fact, was already rejected by the appellate authority and the matter was yet to be adjudicated upon in the writ petition. But the respondent sugar mill avoided any order being passed by the High Court and on the basis of an order said to have been issued in revision against the estimate determined under Section 12 of the Act, it got the proceedings reopened. (vi) The revisional authority was also not having jurisdiction to re-determine the estimate, once the reservation order was passed, and, in fact, it has not redetermined the estimate and left the matter to the Cane Commissioner for being reconsidered, which could not have been done under the provisions of the Act during midst of the crushing season. (vii) The revision under Rule 23-A filed before the State Government, itself was barred by limitation but without condoning the delay, the aforesaid order was passed, which makes the said order also as without jurisdiction. (viii) Two different and discriminatory yardsticks have been applied by the Cane Commissioner in finding out the average of sugarcane crushed by the two sugar mills as in the case of the petitioner he has taken average of the entire cane crushed till date in the crushing season and in the case of respondent sugar mill, he has taken average of only 10 days crushing. 9. 9. Sri Raghvendra Singh, in response, vehemently urged that the respondent sugar mill had moved the application on 7.3.2007 only in pursuance of the direction issued by the revisional authority wherein it was specifically directed that the cane requirement of the respondent sugar mill should be determined taking the crushing capacity as 7200 TCD and, therefore, the Cane Commissioner had not usurped jurisdiction to pass the present order, but had acted only upon the directive issued by the higher authority, namely, the revisional authority. He was thus, fully competent to look into the matter and pass appropriate orders. 10. Sri Singh further submitted that there is no challenge to the order passed in revision and since the petitioner has chosen not to challenge the same, this Court sitting in Division Bench, would not be competent to adjudicate upon the said order nor can go beyond the said order for finding out the alleged illegality in the impugned order including the jurisdiction of the Cane Commissioner to modify the original reservation order. 11. It was next argued by him that it was only by an inadvertent mistake that determination of 115.56 lac quintals of sugarcane for the present crushing season was made on the basis of an incorrect crushing capacity of 6420 TCD, whereas the actual crushing capacity of the sugar mill is 7200 TCD and, therefore, the directive issued by the revisional authority was rightly issued and rightly considered by the Cane Commissioner. 12. In regard to the plea that in the application moved by the respondent sugar mill, there was no prayer for re-determining the required quantity of sugarcane for the present crushing season, he submitted that the application very well says that the cane requirement be revised on crushing capacity of 7200 TCD in the interest of the surrounding farmers, who have been attached to the sugar mill since long and that it was also mentioned that it was in the interest of the company, which had been facing shortage of cane since last two consecutive years, resulting heavy losses. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no prayer for re-estimating the requirement as per the crushing capacity of 7200 TCD for the current crushing season. 13. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was no prayer for re-estimating the requirement as per the crushing capacity of 7200 TCD for the current crushing season. 13. On the plea of no reasonable opportunity being given to the petitioner, he submitted that admittedly on receipt of the application of the respondent sugar mill, due notice was served upon the petitioner intimating that the cane requirement is to be redetermined, as per the crushing capacity of 7200 TCD and this was sufficient notice to understand that on redetermination of cane requirement, reallocation of the centers can be done and not only this, during the course of hearing, the petitioner sugar mill had also put forward its case for retaining the centers and for not diverting the same, but the Cane Commissioner has found it otherwise. Merely because the order has gone against the petitioner sugar mill, it is not open for it to say that it was not having notice of redetermination of the reserved centers. 14. As a consequence of the aforesaid argument, he also submitted that it cannot be disputed by the petitioner sugar mill that in case notice was given for redetermination of the cane requirement in pursuance of the revisional order, on the crushing capacity of 7200 TCD as against the earlier capacity of 6420 TCD, it could not have been done without passing a resultant order of allocation of more sugarcane from the area, from which it could be made available. The Cane Commissioner, being satisfied that these nine centers would cater the need of the respondent sugar mill, was thus, fully competent to pass the impugned order. 15. It was also argued by the respondent sugar mill that in view of various judgments of this Court, which we would refer at a later stage, the Cane Commissioner was fully empowered to make additional allocation of sugarcane, in case there was shortage of sugarcane in the mid of the crushing season and that in doing so, adjustment can be made from the cane area of any other sugar mill, namely, the petitioner sugar mill in the instant case. 16. 16. Sri Raghvendra Singh, besides above pleas, has also raised an argument very seriously that in similar matters, where the Cane Commissioner had modified the orders after passing the original reservation order, this very Court has refused to go into the merits of the order and had interfered only on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the concerned sugar mill and thus, again remanded the matter to the Cane Commissioner and since in the instant case the plea that no notice or reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, while passing the order under challenge cannot be substantiated, this Court would not interfere or should not interfere on the basis of the precedents on merits of the case nor the order can be set aside on that ground. In other words, his submission is that since the plea of lack of opportunity to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, does not hold good, therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed as this Court shall not enter into the merits of the claim of either sugar mill, with respect to the requirement of sugarcane Learned Counsel, however, did not argue that the petitioner should be relegated to the remedy of appeal but we would consider this question also as the Court would not remain oblivious of the statutory provision of appeal under the Act. 17. We find it apposite to place on record at this place, that since in the writ petition though there was a mention of an order passed by the higher authority, to that of the Cane Commissioner but it was described both as appellate or revisional order at different places and to find out that whether it was a revision or appeal, which directed the redetermination of cane requirement at 7200 TCD of the respondent sugar mill and also to know the date of filing of such appeal or revision i.e., whether the revision was filed within time or alongwith application for condonation of delay, the Court put a specific query to the Counsel for the respondent Sri Raghvendra Singh about the aforesaid facts. 18. 18. It was, however, clarified by the parties that only revision lies against the order of the Cane Commissioner notifying the estimated requirement of sugarcane in a particular crushing season under Rule 23-A of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954, therefore, it was the revisional order, which required the Cane Commissioner to act accordingly. However, Sri Raghvendra Singh since stated that he was not having the requisite informations and the Court felt that it was necessary to find out as to whether revision was filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Rules or if thereafter, whether alongwith any application for condonation of delay, the State was directed to produce the record and in any case to find out the date of filing of revision. The State produced the record from where it revealed that the revision was dated 8.1.07 and was signed by Sri Raghvendra Singh and was actually filed on 10.1.07 alongwith application for condonation of delay. 19. This query was felt necessary as the application dated 7.3.2007 moved by the respondent sugar mill did not mention even the date of the order passed in revision and the order aforesaid was also not brought on record as the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that despite best efforts, he could not get the same by the date of filing but could produce the same before the Court at the time of hearing. The record reveals that the order was passed on 22.2.07 but without condoning the delay nor after passing any order on application for condonation of delay filed by the respondent sugar mill. The revision was thus, filed much after the period of 14 days prescribed under the Rules for challenging the estimate notified by the Cane Commissioner under Section 12 of the Act. 20. The revision was thus, filed much after the period of 14 days prescribed under the Rules for challenging the estimate notified by the Cane Commissioner under Section 12 of the Act. 20. We would, at the outset, prefer to deal with the most emphasized argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that since this Court in various cases, has not entered into the merits of the order of the Cane Commissioner, where he has modified or reviewed his original order of reservation and had quashed the same only on the ground of non-affording opportunity to the affected sugar mill and had remanded the matter to the Cane Commissioner, therefore, this Court should not entertain any such plea in this judgment as it would be against the precedents made in the, said judgments. 21. In regard to the aforesaid plea, it would be relevant to mention that each judgment depends upon the facts and circumstances of individual case. The Court, on the facts of the case, applies the law, interprets the legal provisions and in cases, where it finds that there is vacuum in the law on specific issues, which otherwise requires instructions and guidelines, may issue such instructions and guidelines, wholly in consonance with the spirit of the Act or statutory Rules, for the better enforcement of the Act and for fulfillment of the object and purpose of the Act, for which it has been enacted. It is the ratio decidendi of a judgment and the principle, that govern the issue in a particular judgment, which are binding as precedent, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case. A judgment cannot be read as a statute nor there can be any straightjacket formula or a final decision, so as to be binding in all cases, which again will require application of the relevant law in a particular case, depending upon the facts thereof. The legal position or the law, which is applicable in issues arising out of, or under the provisions of a particular Act or Rules, may be followed, as determined and as interpreted. 22. The legal position or the law, which is applicable in issues arising out of, or under the provisions of a particular Act or Rules, may be followed, as determined and as interpreted. 22. The learned Counsel for the respondent cited the case of Ramgarh Chini Mills v. State of U.P. and others (Writ Petition No. 7296 (MB) of 2006), decided on 18.11.2006, wherein an order of reservation of cane centers passed on 30.10.06 was modified within four days i.e. on 4.11.2006 under the caption ‘corrigendum’, bifurcating one cane center into two cane centers and allocating one such divided cane center to each of the sugar mills. The petitioner sugar mill, in that case, challenged the order on the ground lack of opportunity, which was replied to, by the respondent sugar mill by asserting that it was simply a correction of mistake and that since as per the original allotment order and the estimated quantity of sugarcane, which was required by the petitioner was sufficient to be met with an yield of 123 lac quintals whereas by mistake it was allotted an area which was having probable yield of 130.09 lac quintals, therefore, the Cane Commissioner corrected the said mistake and since the petitioner’s quantity of sugarcane did not stand reduced by this correction, the plea of order being bad for want of affording opportunity was not valid as the sugarcane much more than the requirement of the petitioner was available to it. The petitioner sugar mill disputed the quantity of sugarcane determined, but the Court refused to enter into such question of fact. The Court on exercise of its jurisdiction, in the matter of reservation/assignment, made the following observations : “Such an assessment by the Cane Commissioner and subsequently the reservation/assignment of cane centers cannot lightly be interfered with by the Court unless of course some palpable error or gross inequity appears to have crept in, while passing the reservation order. The Court on exercise of its jurisdiction, in the matter of reservation/assignment, made the following observations : “Such an assessment by the Cane Commissioner and subsequently the reservation/assignment of cane centers cannot lightly be interfered with by the Court unless of course some palpable error or gross inequity appears to have crept in, while passing the reservation order. The decision on merits namely which center be reserved or assigned to which sugar mill is the discretion of the Cane Commissioner but in case the Cane Commissioner acts in violation of the provisions of the Act or the Rules framed thereunder or passes the order of reservation contrary to the provisions of law or bases his findings on non-existent facts or incorrect data or passes an order without affording any opportunity, that may constitute a ground for entertaining the writ petition against such a grievance." 23. The plea of the respondent that since it was only a clerical error or mistake, which was corrected by the Cane Commissioner, was not accepted by the Court and since no opportunity was given to the petitioner while making such a modification, the order was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Cane Commissioner. The Court did not enter into the merits of the claim as there was a factual dispute regarding the quantity of sugarcane required as per the estimated quantity under Section 12 and also on the question as to whether any modification of the order by the Cane Commissioner would mean reviewing his order. These matters were, therefore, left open to be pressed before the Cane Commissioner. The following observations of the Court would be relevant for the purpose : “We are not entering into the question, in the instant case, that whether this would mean reviewing of the earlier reservation order passed by the Cane Commissioner, as we leave it open to the parties to prove their claim before the Cane Commissioner.” 24. The Court also noted that the merit of the claim of either parties, as to whether said cane center should remain with the petitioner or with the respondent No. 3, or a newly created divided center should go one each to both the petitioner and respondent, need be considered either by the Cane Commissioner or the appellate authority and not by the Court. 25. 25. In this case, only two pleas were raised by the petitioner sugar mill viz. (i) there was no requirement for bifurcation and; (ii) the order was passed without affording opportunity. The case was decided on the basis of the arguments raised in respect of the aforesaid two points, as is reflected in the judgment aforesaid. 26. The Court, on consideration of the pleas raised, in the facts and circumstances of the case, after setting aside the order under challenge, relegated the parties to the Cane Commissioner, giving them liberty and full opportunity to prove their respective cases. The question as to whether the Cane Commissioner could have reviewed the order or not, a plea which was strongly urged in that petition, was left open for being pressed before the Cane Commissioner himself. 27. This judgment thus, is not a proposition on the question that in all cases, where opportunity has been given, the Court would not be having jurisdiction to see the merits of the claim, even if the prayer for modifying the reservation/assignment orders, in respect of certain cane centers cannot be made at all under the provisions of the Act or rules or has not been made in accordance with rules or settled legal norms or principles, as determined by the Court, nor it can be a judgment on a question, which was never argued. 28. The next case which has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondent in this regard is a judgment passed in Writ Petitoin No. 956 (MB) of 2007 In re: Brijnathpur Sugar Mills Limited v. State of U.P. and others and Writ Petition No. 957 (MB) of 2007 In re: Simbhawali Sugar Mills Limited v. State of U.P. and others, decided by a common order dated 28.2.2007. 29. In this case, the Cane Commissioner had passed the reservation order with respect to three sugar mills in question on 6.10.2006. The respondent sugar mill, namely, Agauta Sugar and Chemicals being aggrieved by the allocation of centers, few in favour of Brijnathpur Sugar Mills and others in favour of Simbhawali Sugar Mills, filed statutory appeal before the State Government on 14.10.2006, which was dismissed on 27.12.2006. The claim of the respondent sugar mill thus, was not accepted with respect to the centers in question by the appellate authority. The claim of the respondent sugar mill thus, was not accepted with respect to the centers in question by the appellate authority. Feeling aggrieved, respondent sugar mill filed a writ petition at Allahabad and in the meantime, during pendency of the aforesaid appeal, they also moved an application to the Cane Commissioner on 11.1.2007, saying that since the sugar mill was facing acute shortage of sugarcane, therefore, one sugarcane purchase centre, namely, Thal Inayatpur and out of 22 sugarcane purchase centers of Brijnathpur Sugar Mills, six sugarcane purchase centres, namely, seven in all, be allocated in their favour. This application was taken up by the Cane Commissioner on 24.1.07, wherein an objection was raised by the petitioner sugar mill that in view of the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the application was not maintainable, therefore, the matter was postponed and was not heard. On 3.2.2007 another application was moved by Agauta Sugar and Chemicals saying that the writ petition filed by them has been dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition, if so required and on 7.2.2007, the Cane Commissioner, for reasons given in his order, allocated all the aforesaid centers to the respondent sugar mill. 30. In this case, a dispute was raised that whether the petitioner sugar mill was given any notice for hearing on the application dated 3.2.2007 and whether it was served with a notice or was having any knowledge about the date i.e. 7.2.2007, when the matter was heard but the record revealed that service could not be affected on the petitioner sugar mill on this application for 7.2.2007 and the Cane Commissioner, after hearing the respondent sugar mill, passed an order on 9.2.2007 by means of which aforesaid all seven centers were given to respondent sugar mill and while doing so, he had also given some statistics regarding crushing capacity and actual crushing and also probable availability of sugarcane etc. 31. The order of the Cane Commissioner dated 9.2.2007 was set aside by the Court directing that the matter be considered by the Cane Commissioner within 7 days, after affording opportunity. 32. 31. The order of the Cane Commissioner dated 9.2.2007 was set aside by the Court directing that the matter be considered by the Cane Commissioner within 7 days, after affording opportunity. 32. Since it was specifically pleaded that once the appeal was dismissed and writ petition was withdrawn, with a motive to have an order from the Cane Commissioner, with liberty to file fresh, as required, the Court observed as under : “......we would like to put on record some of the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties with respect to the question that once the appeal having been dismissed, the allocation of those centers whether was possible and if so under what circumstances; the circumstance under which the appeal was filed and the writ petition was got dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file fresh as required and of course, the data which have been given by the respondent sugar mill with respect to the availability of sugarcane to the sugar mills and the fact that respondent-Sugar Mill had reached the status of ‘no cane’ at all, are such matters which require consideration by the authority concerned. We also feel that the Cane Commissioner while exercising power for considering the case of Sugar Factory who is claiming shortage of sugarcane during crushing season and has reached the status of ‘no sugar-cane’, will still have to act within the scope of the provisions of the Act and Rules keeping in mind the direction issued by this Court in various judgments and some of which have been referred to above, keeping in mind that such adjustment allocation shall not adversely affect any other Sugar-Mill." 33. This was a case where the respondent sugar mill, though had lost in appeal before the State Government in having the cane centers in question, but before the writ petition could be decided, the sugar mill moved the Cane Commissioner for allocation of additional sugarcane area, as it had reached the status of ‘no cane at all’. The Court while allowing the respondent sugar mill to withdraw the writ petition, also gave liberty to file fresh ‘if required’. The Court while allowing the respondent sugar mill to withdraw the writ petition, also gave liberty to file fresh ‘if required’. The liberty so given could not have been taken to be a restraint for the respondent sugar mill to approach the Cane Commissioner in the changed circumstances, wherein it was reaching or had already reached the status of ‘no cane’ during the mid of the crushing season i.e., in the beginning of the month of February itself. 34. The record of the aforesaid case, namely, Brijnathpur Sugar Mills Limited was summoned on the request of the Counsel for the respondent, which also revealed that the plea that the respondent sugar mill is bereft of sugarcane and has reached the status of ‘no cane’ was also sought to be supported by the letter of the District Magistrate, who had allegedly verified about the said shortage. 35. The Court, under the circumstances, while setting aside the order of the Cane Commissioner, as it was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner sugar mill, remanded the matter to the Cane Commissioner for taking a decision after hearing the parties, within a short period of ten days. 36. The facts of the aforesaid case did reveal that the respondent sugar mill had approached the Cane Commissioner after withdrawing the writ petition, with liberty to file fresh, if required, by making out a case of absolute scarcity of sugarcane and, in fact, reducing it to ‘no cane’ status, an insurmountable difficulty, which permitted for additional sugarcane/area and, of course, which prayer could only be accepted by the Cane Commissioner, if he was satisfied about the genuineness of the claim of the respondent sugar mill and that too, without affecting the crushing of any other sugar mill adversely, and unless, of course, there was any surplus sugarcane available for the purpose. This was not a case for claiming back the cane centers because they were wrongly reserved or assigned to the other sugar mill or the cane requirement was determined by inadvertence or by mistake. 37. This was not a case for claiming back the cane centers because they were wrongly reserved or assigned to the other sugar mill or the cane requirement was determined by inadvertence or by mistake. 37. There is a difference between modifying or reviewing the reservation/assignment order, as originally passed by the Cane Commissioner with respect to a sugar mill, when the one sugar mill questions the allocation of given cane centers in favour of other sugar mill on any ground than the claim of a sugar mill that it is facing acute shortage of sugarcane leading to ‘no cane’ status, for which additional sugarcane area be allotted to such a sugar mill. 38. In the former case, the Cane Commissioner would have no jurisdiction to reallocate or modify his order of reservation or assignment as this amounts to reviewing the order, a power which he does not possess. Any party aggrieved by such reservation, may file an appeal or may pursue any other legal remedy, as may be available to it. But in the latter case, it will be the Cane Commissioner who will have the power to test the veracity of the grievance of the applicant sugar mill regarding non-availability of sugarcane, leading it to the status of ‘no cane’ during the mid of the crushing season and if found genuine, to make such arrangement which may be permissible under rules and which arrangement in no way affects the crushing of other sugar mills in the crushing season nor is likely to affect them adversely. 39. In the case in hand, there was no such plea of the respondent sugar mill that it was facing any acute shortage of sugarcane during the mid of the crushing season or that it has reached or is likely to reach the status of ‘no cane at all’ and, therefore, the application moved by it did not fall within the parameters under which the Cane Commissioner could have exercised his authority to make any allocation of additional sugarcane area as against the originally reserved/assigned area, which condition was absolutely essential for the Cane Commissioner to entertain the application. 40. 40. We would like to discuss this issue at a later stage in this judgment, but we have mentioned it here only to indicate that plea of the respondent’s Counsel that this Court had not intervened in similar matters, reference of which have been given above, does not stand corroborated from the facts of the aforesaid cases and the order passed therein. 41. We do take notice of the principle underlying the policy of the Act, permitting the Cane Commissioner to re-look into the reservation/assignment made in favour of a particular sugar mill, if it faces shortage of sugarcane during the crushing season and is likely to fall in the status of ‘no cane’ or has already come in that stage. The Cane Commissioner, on being approached, and on indicating that such status has arrived or is likely to arrive soon, shall determine the bona fide need of sugar mill and if he is satisfied that sugar mill is closed or is likely to be closed for want of sugarcane, he may consider reallocation or change in allotment of sugarcane area from any other cane area, subject to the condition that such adjustment or reallocation or changed allotment does not adversely effect the other sugar mill and that it has a surplus of sugarcane, as against its own requirement. 42. The Cane Commissioner, can also see that if despite assignment/reservation of a particular cane area with given number of centers either having been reserved or assigned and quantity of sugarcane available therein for a particular sugar mill is not being crushed for any obvious reason, the quantity so crushed and the future quantity which can be crushed to its maximum capacity would still leave some sugarcane in surplus in that area, after giving due opportunity to the sugar mill and after being satisfied that such sugar mill would not be adversely affected, may make modification in the said cane area but merely because a sugar mill is facing shortage of sugarcane, may be bona fide, the centers cannot be reallocated to such a sugar mill from the reserved area of any other sugar mill, which is having only that much sugarcane, which is sufficient for its own crushing. 43. 43. There may be instances of breakdown in a factory or surplus yield of sugarcane or any other such, reason, which makes it evident, that concerned sugar mill is not in a position to crush all the sugarcane available in its reserved area and there is another sugar mill, which is facing acute shortage of sugarcane bona fide and would be closed for want of sugarcane in the mid crushing season. The Cane Commissioner, in such circumstances, can exercise his discretion so as to pass an order without adversely affecting either of the sugar mills. But the Cane Commissioner does not have the power to redo the reservation/assignment merely on a bare allegation of shortage or likely shortage of sugarcane with a sugar mill during the crushing season. 44. It is always to be kept in mind that the order of reservation/assignment passed by the Cane Commissioner in his original jurisdiction, attains finality, the moment it is passed, subject to any order being passed in appeal or in writ jurisdiction. But in the absence of any modification so made either in the appeal or writ jurisdiction, the Cane Commissioner would have no right to reopen the reservation/assignment of the sugarcane already made, nor he would have any authority to redetermine the quantity of sugarcane for finding out as to whether the cane area earlier allotted was right or wrong. The Cane Commissioner shall also have no authority or power to redetermine the cane requirement merely on the ground that the crushing capacity was incorrectly taken at the time of passing of original reservation order, as against the actual crushing capacity per day, or that the estimated requirement was wrongly notified by the Cane Commissioner or by the State Government under Section 12, as the case may be. 45. 45. The only limited power which the Cane Commissioner can exercise after passing of the reservation/assignment order, on an application being moved by the sugar mill is to see that a particular sugar mill is facing bona fide shortage of sugarcane and that it would fall within the category of ‘no cane status’ during mid of the crushing season or has already fallen in the said category and for that purpose, he is to determine the additional requirement as per the crushing capacity of the sugar mill as against already determined quantity, and also to see actually whether additional sugarcane from the reserved area of any other sugar mill is available being surplus or not and whether the sugar mill is facing any acute shortage of sugarcane. 46. In the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. v. State of U.P. and others, 2006 (2) ALJ 730, a Division Bench of this Court, while defining the power of the Cane Commissioner, observed that the statute does not give an unrestricted free hand to the Cane Commissioner to keep revising his reservation orders on any slight pretext. Any other interpretation would not only have the risk of mischief on the part of sugar factories, but would also not be in the interest of the cane growers. The relevant paragraph of the said report is being quoted below : “Having considered the said statutory provision, we are of the opinion that having regard to the purpose and objective of the legislation, the aforesaid (underlined) words of the Statute are not intended to give an unrestricted free hand to the, Cane Commissioner to keep revising his reservation orders on any slight pretext. Any other interpretation would not only have the risk of mischief on part of sugar factories, but would also not be in the interest of the cane growers. One of the advantages of long term reservation is to give incentive to the factories to help in developing their reserved areas for better yield. Therefore the power conferred by the said (underlined) words can be exercised only in the event of some major change, which may have taken place in the situation subsequent to the original reservation order. One of the advantages of long term reservation is to give incentive to the factories to help in developing their reserved areas for better yield. Therefore the power conferred by the said (underlined) words can be exercised only in the event of some major change, which may have taken place in the situation subsequent to the original reservation order. For example, where an area has been reserved or assigned in favour of a particular sugar mill which has subsequently expressed its unwillingness or inability to continue with any part of its reserved or assigned area, in which case the part of the area may be assigned to another factory. Similarly, where for some subsequent unforeseen circumstances, a factory has become incapable of operating its reserved or assigned area. There may be other cases where exercise of the power may be justified on the part of the Cane Commissioner, but all such cases must relate to some subsequent major change in the situation and the power cannot be exercised merely because of a new line of thought on the part of the Cane Commissioner, or on the ground that there was some error (sort of fraud) committed while passing the original order of reservation or assignment. At this point we must clarify, that the first example given above would not include cases where a factory says that it wants to surrender part of its reserved area in exchange or other wants to surrender part of its reserved area in exchange or other area, because this would open a back-door to review of area, because this would open a back-door to review of reservation." 47. The Court in the said case found that there was nothing on record to show any unforeseen insurmountable difficulty in purchasing cane from 21 centers by the respondent No. 4. They have failed to show any drastic change in the situation subsequent to the original reservation, which change caused any major difficulty (as distinguished from inconvenience) for respondent No. 4 in purchasing sugarcane from these 21 purchase centers which could not have been foreseen earlier by an experienced sugar factory owner or manager. 48. In the case of Govind Nagar Sugar Ltd. Walterganj Basti and etc. 48. In the case of Govind Nagar Sugar Ltd. Walterganj Basti and etc. v. State of U.P. and others, 2001 ALJ 741, decided by one of us (Pradeep Kant, J), the Court laid down the principles arising out of the provisions of Section 12 of the Act in the matter of determination of requirement of sugarcane for the crushing season at the time of passing reservation order under Section 15. After taking into consideration the scheme of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, it was held that the estimate notified by the Cane Commissioner under Section 12 or modified by the State Government in revision under Rule 23-A, as the case may be, shall be taken into account by the Cane Commissioner at the time of passing of the original reservation order for the purpose of assessing the quantity of sugarcane available for a particular sugar mill and the cane centers which may be required for the yield of aforesaid quantity of sugarcane but in case during mid of the crushing season any sugar mill faces acute shortage of sugarcane in pursuance of the allocations already made and is likely to close down in the mid of the crushing season, such a mill can approach the Cane Commissioner for making appropriate arrangement, as may be permissible, keeping in mind the interest of the applicant sugar mill, the interest of the sugar mills in the vicinity, the interest of the cane growers etc. Of course, while making such an arrangement, it has to be clearly kept in mind that other sugar mill, from where additional sugarcane area is likely to be proposed, is not adversely affected by such reallocation. 49. A Division Bench of this Court in which one of us (Pradeep Kant, J.) was a member, in the case of M/s Daya Sugars v. State of U.P. and another (Writ Petition No. 944 (MB) of 2007), decided on 27.2.2007, after considering the dictum in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. (supra), observed that the aforesaid Division Bench judgment cannot be taken to mean that in case there is a requirement of additional sugarcane after reservation order becomes final as the sugar factory faces acute shortage of sugarcane during the mid of crushing season, the Cane Commissioner will have no right to re-assess the situation and pass appropriate order. In fact, total denial of sugarcane, to a factory during the crushing season, for want of sugarcane in his reserved or assigned area, itself is a major difficulty and hardship, which of course has to be seen in the light of the provisions of the Act and the Rules and also the status of sugarcane available in the area of other sugar mills and that there cannot be any dispute that ‘no cane status’ during the mid of crushing season is a major change which takes subsequently i.e. after passing of reservation order. The Court summed up by making the following observations : “It is always within the authority of the Cane Commissioner to provide additional sugarcane to the sugar factory which bona fide is faced with the shortage of sugarcane and requires more sugarcane for producing sugar during particular crushing season and the Cane Commissioner may under such circumstances entertain an application for reservation or assignment of additional area. The bona fide need of sugar factory has to be strictly dealt with in accordance with the settled norms and rules and it is also to be seen that whether there is any surplus area or sugar cane available in the reserved/assigned area of any other sugar mill from where it can be delivered and also while making such an allocation of additional area, the concerned sugar mill is not likely to be adversely affected because of such diversion. The discretion has to be exercised by the Cane Commissioner in the light of the observations/guidance made in Govind Nagar Sugar Mills, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills and Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. cases referred to above.” The Court, therefore, directed that application of the petitioner sugar mill be considered within ten days by the Cane Commissioner. 50. The discretion has to be exercised by the Cane Commissioner in the light of the observations/guidance made in Govind Nagar Sugar Mills, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills and Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. cases referred to above.” The Court, therefore, directed that application of the petitioner sugar mill be considered within ten days by the Cane Commissioner. 50. The observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (Writ Petition No. 4037 (MB) of 2006) decided on 5.1.2007 also reiterate the same view as has been taken in the case of Daya Sugars and in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. and read as under : “Thus, if the Cane Commissioner relies upon the estimate prepared under Section 12 for the purposes of declaration of reserved or assigned area under Section 15(1) unless there is something very exceptional, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed by him. This does not mean that even if a sugar factory bona fide requires more sugarcane than the quantity estimated for such sugar factory, would not have any right to take any additional sugarcane or Cane Commissioner would not have any authority or power to allot more sugarcane by making further reservation of area or assignment in his favour. The supply of sugarcane by means of reservation and assignment of an area is a continuous process throughout the crushing season and as and when the shortage is felt, to the satisfaction of the Cane Commissioner by a sugar factory, it can be made good either by making reservation or assignment of further area. Thus, there are two stages under the Act for declaration of reserved area or assigned area, namely; (1) under Section 15 initially, i.e., at the start of crushing season when the reservation has to be made and (ii) secondly at all point of time during the entire crushing season when additional sugarcane is required by any sugar factory." 51. There cannot be any deviation from the principle enunciated in the aforesaid judgments nor do we intend to deviate from the same. There cannot be any deviation from the principle enunciated in the aforesaid judgments nor do we intend to deviate from the same. The basic requirement for having an additional area of sugarcane after the reservation order is passed during the crushing season, is that the sugar mill bona fide feels shortage of sugarcane and that the Cane Commissioner has to satisfy himself about such shortage, which may lead or has already led the sugar mill to ‘no cane status’ and if satisfied with the aforesaid claim, he will further have to see that if any additional area can be allocated to the sugar mill by assigning, reserving or taking out any area from reserved area of any other sugar mill, without adversely affecting the said sugar mill in any manner and only on being convinced that there is surplus sugarcane available in that area, which may be allowed to be utilized by the sugar mill, which is facing acute shortage and may go waste if it is allowed to remain in the reserved area of the other sugar mill, such additional cane area can be allocated. 52. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. (supra) which cautions against mischief by sugar factories and protects the interest of the cane growers and also gives incentive to the factories to help in developing their area for better yield and thus, also minimizes arbitrariness on the part of the Cane Commissioner or the cane authorities in the matter of reservation/assignment of cane centers. 53. Sri Raghvendra Singh himself has argued that since the Cane Commissioner was having power to see that there was shortage of sugarcane with the respondent sugar mill, therefore, he was justified in making reallocation. 54. There cannot be any disagreement on the principle, on which the aforesaid argument is based but to test its applicability, it has to be seen as to whether there was any case of acute shortage of sugarcane with respondent sugar mill during the crushing season or that it ever pleaded such a shortage, which can be said to be a bona fide claim or that the Cane Commissioner did apply his mind to the aforesaid principle, while determining the cane requirement in pursuance of the revisional directives. 55. 55. The application dated 7.3.2007 does not say anywhere that the sugar mill is facing acute cane shortage in the present running crushing season i.e. 2006-2007 or that it has reached the status of ‘no cane’ or is likely to reach as such soon or in near future. 56. The application, which was read over by the learned Counsel for both the parties, only says that cane requirement of the sugar mill was fixed as 115.56 lac quintals for the crushing season 2006-07 based on the crushing capacity of 6420 TCD. The sugar mill had submitted a letter before the then Cane Commissioner mentioning therein unequivocal manner that its crushing capacity is 7200 TCD but due to some inadvertent mistake of the Cane Commissioner office their requirement was fixed at 6420 TCD. Therefore, there is an apparent loss of 14.04 lac quintals of cane, resulting into diversion of their reserved/assigned cane area which was developed by them over a period of time to the nearby sugar mills. In total 29 centers and 11 villages were diverted to other sugar factories. Reference of these centers has been given in the application, which includes the centers in question. The application further said that the respondent sugar mill has been carrying cane development and infrastructure development activity in the said area since last ten years. Lastly it was mentioned that the sugar mill had filed a revision before the Special Secretary (Sugar) and the revisional authority had agreed in principle that their cane requirement should be based on crushing capacity of 7200 TCD i.e., 129.60 lac quintals and with this positive observation had remanded the matter to the Cane Commissioner for finally issuing the necessary orders. 57. The application also said that presently they were consistently crushing 6900-7000 TCD. In the last, a request was made to pass order for revising their cane requirement on crushing capacity of 7200 TCD in the interest of surrounding farmers, who have been attached to them since long. The only plea of shortage of sugarcane on which the learned Counsel for the respondent had put much emphasis was in the following terms : “It is in the interest of the company, which had been facing shortage of cane since last two consecutive years, resulting heavy losses.” 58. The only plea of shortage of sugarcane on which the learned Counsel for the respondent had put much emphasis was in the following terms : “It is in the interest of the company, which had been facing shortage of cane since last two consecutive years, resulting heavy losses.” 58. We have virtually reproduced the entire application dated 7.3.2007 but we fail to find a single averment, even in mildest tone, that the sugar mill was facing any acute shortage of sugarcane in the present crushing season leading it to ‘no cane’ status but for only a bald and vague plea that they have been facing shortage of sugarcane, that too not acute since last two consecutive years, but obviously it did not say any shortage much less any acute shortage of sugarcane in the present crushing season, nor it disclosed as to in what manner and how much shortage it has faced or is facing. 59. The tenor of the whole application and, in fact, unmistakably, the text of the application reveals that the sugar mill felt aggrieved by determination of sugarcane requirement under Section 12 of the Act with crushing capacity of 6420 TCD, which according to them, should have been determined on the basis of crushing capacity of 7200 TCD. On the aforesaid assumption the respondent sugar mill claimed a loss of 14.04 lac quintals of sugarcane, which was diverted to reserved/assigned sugarcane area of other sugar mills. In fact, the words used in the application did not require the Cane Commissioner to redetermine the quantity of sugarcane required but a request was made that since the revisional authority has already agreed in principle that cane requirement of respondent sugar mill should be based on crushing capacity of 7200 TCD, it left no option for the Commissioner except to determine the actual requirement if at all it was needed, in addition to the determination already made with respect to the sugar mill. The application said that since the matter has been remanded in revision with aforesaid positive observation, therefore, necessary final orders may be passed. 60. The contents of the aforesaid application cannot be read to mean that it was moved because of some major change or insurmountable difficulty, which the mill faced during the mid of the crushing season, because of acute shortage of sugarcane. 60. The contents of the aforesaid application cannot be read to mean that it was moved because of some major change or insurmountable difficulty, which the mill faced during the mid of the crushing season, because of acute shortage of sugarcane. In fact, the pleas which have been raised in the application, could only be raised for challenging the reservation order in appeal or in higher forum but were not sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Cane Commissioner to redetermine the allocation of sugarcane area. 61. A perusal of the order passed by the revisional authority would reveal that it had issued direction for considering the cane requirement as per the capacity of 7200 TCD but did not say that even if there is no acute shortage of sugarcane to the sugar mill, the cane centers of the present sugar mill should be taken away or additional cane area should be awarded to the sugar mill. Even if it is assumed that revisional order cannot be a subject-matter of adjudication in the present writ petition, the same having not been challenged, we certainly can take judicial notice of the said order and the effect and repercussion of the said order on the petitioner sugar mill as well as on the respondent sugar mill, without testing its legality or invalidity. 62. Without addressing ourselves on the question that whether revision against the Cane Commissioner’s notification under Section 12 on estimated quantity of a sugar mill, could have been filed after 14 days or if it could be filed, whether delay ought to have been condoned before dealing with it on merits, as obviously in the instant case delay has not been condoned, the fact remains that merely on a directive of redetermining the cane requirement on the capacity of 7200 TCD or any other enhanced capacity as against the capacity, on which the allocation was made in the original reservation order, the Cane Commissioner would not get any right or authority to undo his original reservation order by making a fresh order of reservation/assignment. The sugar mill shall have no right to have additional area of sugarcane, unless it falls within the parameters prescribed by the Court in the case of Govind Nagar Sugar Ltd. (supra), Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. (supra) and Balrampur Chini Mills (supra) 63. The sugar mill shall have no right to have additional area of sugarcane, unless it falls within the parameters prescribed by the Court in the case of Govind Nagar Sugar Ltd. (supra), Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. (supra) and Balrampur Chini Mills (supra) 63. In view of the aforesaid finding that the Cane Commissioner was having no power to entertain such an application for making re-allocation/change of centers, which has the effect of reviewing the reservation order passed originally without there being any pleading and material about the acute shortage leading to ‘no cane status’ to the respondent sugar mill, it can safely be concluded that the Cane Commissioner, grossly in violation of the provisions of the Act and Rules, withdrew nine centers from the reserved area of the petitioner sugar mill, though the respondent sugar mill lost the same cane centers in appeal and in the writ petition, no order was passed in their favour. 64. The respondent sugar mill, first moved the application on 7.3.2007, before the Cane Commissioner and got the writ petition dismissed, after filing of the present writ petition. The conduct of the respondent sugar mill apparently shows that it moved the application before the Cane Commissioner only for the purpose of getting back the cane centers in question, which it failed to secure otherwise in appeal or in the High Court. 65. In regard to the plea of the respondent that there was due notice to the petitioner and since it had participated in the proceedings before the Cane Commissioner, therefore, it cannot be said that the order is bad for want of opportunity, suffice it would be to mention that the said plea does not assist the respondent sugar mill in any manner as the order passed by the Cane Commissioner suffers from inherent lack of jurisdiction and, therefore, even if accepting that there was sufficient notice on which ground the order cannot be interfered with (though this is being strongly disputed by the petitioner), it would have no impact upon the finding recorded by us. 66. 66. We also find reasonable force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that while finding out the average cane crushed per day by the two sugar mills, the Cane Commissioner took an average of everyday crushing by the petitioner sugar mill for the complete season till date, whereas for the respondent sugar mill, he took only last ten days during which period the actual crushing was shown to be higher than the crushing capacity, on which the reservation order was passed. This, in itself, cannot be said to be a valid ground for determining the average of the sugarcane or determining the crushing capacity or the requirement of sugarcane in the end of the season, which has been taken to be 15th May by the Cane Commissioner. 67. In case the Cane Commissioner was of the view that demand of the respondent sugar mill for change in the area was to be considered, it was obligatory for him to see that whether any such acute shortage of sugarcane for the crushing season has been laid down or has been mentioned in the application and whether any material/data has been given to show that sugar mill has already reached the status of ‘no cane’ or is likely to reach in that category soon in the current crushing season and if on the basis of such statement of fact made in the application, so moved, he was satisfied that there was a bona fide requirement of additional sugarcane, as the sugar mill was likely to reach the ‘no cane status’ or has already reached the said status after the passing of the reservation order during the mid of crushing season, then again he was to apply his mind and by giving proper opportunity to all concerned mills, to assess that whether any surplus sugarcane was available in the cane area of the sugar mill from where diversion was likely to be proposed. 68. It was the legal obligation of the Cane Commissioner to see that no such change is affected, which has or might have an adverse effect upon the functioning of the sugar mill, from whose reserved area the additional area is to be allocated to the demanding sugar mill. While doing so, the Cane Commissioner has to adopt uniform criteria and not two different criteria for two different sugar mills. While doing so, the Cane Commissioner has to adopt uniform criteria and not two different criteria for two different sugar mills. Such an order obviously reflects that the same has been passed to favour a particular sugar mill, by whatever means it could be done. 69. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also drawn attention of the Court to the finding recorded by the appellate authority in appeal filed against the order of reservation dated 28.10.06, wherein the appellate authority has observed that neither there was any shortage of sugarcane to the respondent sugar mill nor there was surplus sugarcane available in the area reserved for the petitioner sugar mill and, therefore, there was no justification or necessity to divert these nine centers in question to the respondent sugar mill. The argument, therefore, is that it cannot be presumed nor it has been established either by pleadings or proving, that there was any shortage, much less any acute shortage, of sugarcane to the respondent sugar mill and, therefore, also the order is without jurisdiction. 70. We have gone through the appellate order and we find that the appellate authority had given a finding to the aforesaid effect, which, of course, had not been taken into consideration at all by the Cane Commissioner, while modifying the order of reservation. It was a relevant factor, which could not have been ignored, particularly when there was no statement that the respondent sugar mill was facing any shortage, much less any acute shortage, of sugarcane during the crushing season. Mere alleged wrong determination of estimate under Section 12, would not be a ground for modifying the reservation order original passed after hearing the parties. 71. The case of Brijnath Sugar Mills Limited appears to have been cited by the respondent only to remind the Court that in the said case also appeal against the reservation order was dismissed and writ petition was got dismissed with liberty to file fresh, if required, and the Cane Commissioner had entertained the application for allocation of additional sugarcane area and that too, without notice but this Court while setting aside the order, remanded the matter to the Cane Commissioner and did not enter into the merits of the claim and, therefore, this petition should also be limited to that extent. 72. 72. We have already given reasons and facts and circumstances of the case of Brijnath Sugar Mills Limited and the present case and it is reiterated that the case of Brijnath Sugar Mills Limited was a case where the respondent sugar mill had claimed that it has no sugarcane available in its reserved area and has reached the status of ‘no cane’, leading to the closure of the sugar mill during the mid of the crushing season, whereas in the instant case, no such plea was raised by the respondent sugar mill before the Cane Commissioner and, therefore, the aforesaid case cannot be a precedent for the present case. 73. Sri Raghvendra Singh has also drawn the attention of this Court to the language used in the order passed by the Cane Commissioner in the case of Brijnath Sugar Mills Limited when he had modified his reservation order after observing that there can be shortage of sugarcane at the end of the crushing season and the same language has been used in the present impugned order, therefore, no interference is required in this case also, on the ground that there is no finding of the Cane Commissioner, that there exists acute cane shortage in the respondent sugar mill. 74. The order of the Cane Commissioner in the present writ petition is not bad, since it has used the expression that there can be a shortage of sugarcane to the respondent sugar mill but because the Cane Commissioner had reached to this conclusion without any pleading and without any material and much less, without any such claim of acute shortage of sugarcane being raised by the respondent sugar mill and also without recording any reasons on the said issue. In case such a claim of ‘no cane status’ is put forward by a sugar mill, the matter has to be considered in that light as per the rules and settled norms but when there is no such claim, the question of holding that there can be a shortage of sugarcane would never arise, nor the Cane Commissioner would have any jurisdiction to modify the reservation order or to entertain any such application. 75. 75. The basic distinguishing feature in the case of Brijnath Sugar Mills Limited and the present case is thus, in earlier petition the case was of bona fide acute shortage of sugarcane during the mid crushing season, which fact is patently and evidently missing in the application of the respondent sugar mill. 76. On a conspectus of the facts and circumstances of the case and findings recorded by us, we hold that the Cane Commissioner had no jurisdiction to modify or change the reservation order dated 28.10.06 by withdrawing nine centers in question from the reserved area of the petitioner sugar mill and the entire action, despite direction issued by the revisional authority to redetermine the cane requirement treating the crushing season as 7200 TCD, would not confer any authority upon him to redo the reservation already made. The Cane Commissioner, though has not redetermined the cane requirement on 7200 TCD, as observed by the revisional authority, but by carving out a new formula of finding out average crushing that too differently for two different sugar mills, has interfered with the original reservation order passed by him, which also vitiates the order impugned. 77. The Cane Commissioner could have entertained the application only if it was a case of acute shortage of sugarcane actually being faced by the respondent sugar mill during the mid crushing season and it had reached or was likely to reach the status of ‘no cane’ at all in the midst of the crushing season, which would have happened after passing of the reservation order. There cannot be a bar for any sugar mill for making a request for having additional sugarcane in the light of the principles enunciated above, and such a request has to be considered by the Cane Commissioner also, keeping in mind the directives issued aforesaid. 78. The Cane Commissioner was having no jurisdiction to entertain the application moved by the respondent sugar mill, when it neither pleaded nor substantiated by any material/evidence, that it was facing acute shortage of sugarcane, so as to be in the ‘no cane’ status. The circumstances of this case are fully covered by the caution expressed in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. (supra), which does not permit any such jurisdiction to be exercised by the Cane Commissioner. 79. The circumstances of this case are fully covered by the caution expressed in the case of Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. (supra), which does not permit any such jurisdiction to be exercised by the Cane Commissioner. 79. Since the application moved by the respondent sugar mill was not at all entertainable by the Cane Commissioner for allocation of cane centers, we do not find any reason to remit the matter back to the Cane Commissioner, nor the remedy of appeal shall be a bar in entertaining the petition. 80. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order 21.3.2007 passed by the Cane Commissioner is hereby quashed. No order as to costs. 81. Judgment pronounced under Chapter VII Rule 1 (2) of the Rules of the Court. ————