RAJIV SHARMA, J. As the common question of facts and law are involved in all these writ petitions and the manufacturing units are situated within the Cane Region Meerut and, as such, they are being decided by a common judgment. Heard Mr. Virendra Bhatia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jaideep Narain Mathur, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by the learned Standing Counsel for the State, Mr. Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sudeep Kumar and Mr. Vivek Chaudhary, for Daurala Sugar Works, Mr. Dhruv Mathur for Modi Sugar Mills and SBEC Sugar Mills, Dr. R. K. Srivastava for Simbhaoli Sugar Mills, Mr. Sudeep Kumar for Naglamal Sugar Complex and Mawana Sugar Works, Mr. Jyotinjay Verma for U. P. State Sugar Corporation, Mr. Raghvendra Kumar Singh for Triveni Engineering Works Limited and Mr. K. S. Pawar for Co-operative Cane Development Societies and perused the records produced by the learned Standing Counsel. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions are being decided at the admission stage itself. Petitioners Units, registered under the Companies Act, situate within Meerut Division and are involved in the production and sale of White Crystal Sugar through Vacuum pan Process. For the crushing season 2008-09, the Cane Commissioner invited applications in the requisite format from all the units within the said region under Section 12 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Act, 1953 [hereinafter referred to as the act for the sake of brevity] and in pursuance thereof, applications were submitted. On the basis of the applications so submitted by the Units, order under Section 12 of the Act was passed. After passing the order under Section 12 (2) of the Act, applications were invited for passing reservation orders under Section 15 of the Act and in pursuance thereof, all the units have submitted their applications in the requisite format and the Cane Commissioner after hearing the occupiers of the factories as well as the representative of the Cooperative Societies have passed the reservation orders under Section 15 (1) of the Act on 3. 11. 2008. 11. 2008. The orders so passed were assailed by filing writ petition in this Court and this Court disposed of the writ petition and relegated the matter to the Appellate Authority with a direction to decide the appeals expeditiously, as the petitioner has a statutory alternative remedy. In compliance thereof, the petitioner filed an appeal alongwith application for interim relief and the Appellate Authority rejected the application for interim relief by means of the order dated 27. 11. 2008 which was assailed by M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. by filing another writ petition in this Court, but subsequently the said writ petition was withdrawn as the orders were finally passed in the appeal by the appellate authority on 4. 12. 2008, remanding the matter to the Cane Commissioner for deciding afresh. The said order has been assailed by M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. , M/s DCM Shriram Industries Limited and M/s Mawana Sugars Limited by filing writ petitions, which were numbered as Writ Petition No. 5959 (MS) of 2008, Writ petition No. 6041 (MS) of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 6039 (MS) of 2008 respectively. Affidavits have also been filed by the respective parties in Writ Petition No. 5959 (MS) of 2008. In has been contended by the counsel for Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. that the mill demanded for 260 LQ of sugarcane, but as per order under Section 12, the requirement estimated was 180 LQ and vide reservation orders, the Cane Commissioner allotted 150 LQ. It has been submitted that ninety sugarcane centres of the mill have been assigned to different units within the region by means of reservation orders for the crushing season 2008-09 and also the area has been reduced. Accordingly, he preferred an appeal praying therein for reverting the said centres in favour of the said mill. It was also urged that while assigning the sugarcane centres, area has also been reduced. While assailing the orders of reservation before the appellate authority, it has been urged by the petitioner that the proposal of the sugarcane growers Cooperative Society are mostly in favour of the appellant in respect of the sugarcane centres which have been assigned to the opposite parties, but in spite of it contrary finding had been recorded by the Cane Commissioner. It has also been contended that the Cane Commissioner has not considered that the sugarcane dues as well as commission has been paid though after litigation which went upto the Apex Court. It has also been stated that some of the sugarcane centres falls within the mill-gate area and in assigning the said centres in favour of other units, there is a possibility of poaching and illegal purchases of sugarcane. Drawal percentages have also been enhanced in respect of Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. as compared to other units. It has also been contended that while passing the orders, requisite factors, as enumerated in Rule 22 of the Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 [hereinafter referred to as the Rules for the sake of brevity] have not been followed. Finally, counsel for the petitioner submitted that the application for interim relief which has been rejected by the Appellate Authority is without any reason, as the units in whose favour reserved area of the petitioner has been assigned, are lifting the sugarcane which will result in colossal loss to the unit in case the orders are reversed. M/s DCM Shriram Industies Limited and M/s Mawana Sugars Limited have assailed the orders passed by the Appellate Authority inter alia on the grounds that the Appellate Authority has failed to consider that sugarcane growers of different Cooperative Societies have been harassed by Bajaj Hindustan Limited insofar as they have not been paid the sugarcane dues for the crushing season 2007-08 in time as well as the resolutions for not supplying the sugarcane to M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. have been adopted by the Society. They have also contended that the sugarcane has not been made available as has been estimated in an order under Section 12 of the Act and as such, there was a shortage of sugarcane, therefore, the order for remand passed under Section 15 (4) is arbitrary and illegal and is liable to be quashed. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Co-operative Cane Development Societies, which have been arrayed as opposite parties 12 to 15, supporting the orders passed by the Cane Commissioner and stated that the Societies have passed the resolutions against M/s Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. for the reason that the cheque given by the petitioner-factory to the opposite party No. 13 was dishonoured. It has also been stated that the amount of sugarcane was only paid, after initiation of recovery proceedings and the said proceedings went upto Apex Court resulting in harassment of the sugarcane growers in the crushing season 2007-08. In a short counter affidavit filed on behalf of M/s Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited, Lucknow, it has been stated that the appellate authority did not record any reason with regard to the illegality in the orders passed by the Cane Commissioner under Section 15 (1) of the Act but inspite of that remanded the matter to the Cane Commissioner and affording another chance to the Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. It has also been submitted that all the mills in the region have been allocated less sugarcane on account of shortage of sugarcane during the crushing season 2008-09. It has also been stated that the reservation order has been passed after affording opportunity of hearing to all the parties and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances by an expert body and as such, there is no occasion for interfering in the said order. It has also been submitted that as the order of reservation in their favour dated 20. 11. 2008 is not challenged and as such it would be in the fitness of things that answering opposite party No. 11 may be deleted from the array of parties. Daurala Sugar Works, Daurala [respondent no. 3] has also filed a counter affidavit, stating therein that there is no obligation upon the Cane Commissioner to allot sugarcane to a factory as per its requirement fixed under Section 12 of the Act but the allotment of sugarcane is done as per Section 15 of the Act after consulting the cane growers and their societies and the sugar factories. It has also been stated that it is not incumbent upon the Cane Commissioner to pass an order under Section 15 (1) of the Act only in consonance with Section 12 of the Act. The Cane Commissioner cannot be guided on the basis of the order passed under Section 12 of the Act as he has to look into every aspect while passing the order under Section 15 of the Act and Rule 22 of the Rules. The Cane Commissioner cannot be guided on the basis of the order passed under Section 12 of the Act as he has to look into every aspect while passing the order under Section 15 of the Act and Rule 22 of the Rules. It has also been stated that the as the dues of the sugarcane has not been paid, as such, recovery proceedings were instituted against the petitioner and it is only, after legal battle and intervention of Government, dues were paid by the Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. It is in this background that the resolution of the Sugarcane Co-operative Societies has been passed against Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. Counsel for the parties at the initial stage have levelled allegations and counter-allegations on each other with regard to the conduct of the respective counsel for the parties, as the counsel who are appearing in the instant case for opposite parties have appeared on earlier occasions on behalf of the petitioners and vice versa, but subsequently the allegations so raised were not pressed by any of the counsel and as such, I am not recording any finding in this regard. Mr. Prashant Chandra has submitted that under Section 15 (1) of the Act, it is only the factories and cane growers are to be consulted before passing the order. He has also stated that the factors of Rule 22 are not mandatory and are not relevant for passing the order of reservation. He has also stated that orders passed under Section 12 of the Act are independent to that of orders passed under Section 15 of the Act. He has also submitted that the Cane Commissioner has invited the applications under Section 12 of the Act from the respective units on 5th May, 2008. In pursuant thereof, on 5th June, 2008, all the respective Units have submitted their applications along with detailed requisite information. Thereafter, the Cane Commissioner invited the reservation application on 25th August, 2008 and subsequent to that an order under Section 12 of the Act was passed on 19/20th September, 2008. After completion of this exercise, the Cane Commissioner fixed 29th September, 2008 as hearing date. Then, on 3rd November, 2008, the Cane Commissioner, after hearing all the parties, passed the reservation order. Dr. After completion of this exercise, the Cane Commissioner fixed 29th September, 2008 as hearing date. Then, on 3rd November, 2008, the Cane Commissioner, after hearing all the parties, passed the reservation order. Dr. R. K. Srivastava, learned counsel, appearing for the Simbhaoli Sugar Limited, has submitted that the Cane Commissioner at the time of passing the order under Section 15 (1) of the Act has taken into consideration the resolution of the Co-operative Societies. He also states that in the reservation order itself, the Cane Commissioner has observed that on account of the law and order situation, strike of 66 days and non-payment of cane growers dues, cane growers are not interested to supply the respective sugarcane to Bajaj Hindustan Limited. He has also submitted that the Central Government issued Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 in exercise of power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Control Order"), which inter alia provides for fixation of the minimum price for Sugar Cane supplied to factories and price payable by factories to the farmers, known as Statutory Minimum Price (SMP ). This SMP is fixed by the Central Government every year before commencement of the crushing season having regard to: (a) the cost of production of sugarcane; (b) the return to the grower from alternative crops and the general trend of prices of agricultural commodities; (c) the availability of sugar to the consumer at a fair price; (d) the price at which sugar produced from sugarcane is sold by producers of sugar; and (e) the recovery of sugar from sugarcane. He has submitted that all these ingredients have been considered while passing the orders for reservation by the Cane Commissioner. He has also submitted that the sugarcane growers are not interested to supply sugarcane to the petitioners unit as dues have not been paid to them within time during the crushing season 2007- 08 as provided under Section 17 of the Act. Thus, the conduct of the Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. is not upto the mark. The factors and requirements as enumerated in Rule 22 are not relevant while passing the reservation order. Dr. Thus, the conduct of the Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. is not upto the mark. The factors and requirements as enumerated in Rule 22 are not relevant while passing the reservation order. Dr. R. K. Srivastava has also pointed out that the provisions of the Act and Rules show in unmistakable terms that the order for assignment or reservation of an area has to be passed after taking into consideration various factors and it cannot be based upon one solitary consideration. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the case of U. P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others [1995 AWC 637]. The above laid down principle has been followed in the case of M/s. Siel Ltd. v. State of U. P. and others [ 1997 (2) JCLR 100 (All)], wherein it has been mentioned that the powers must be exercised reasonably has to be reconciled with the no less important doctrine that the Court must not usurp the discretion of the public authority. Dr. R. K. Srivastava further submits that the validity of remand order must be tested with reference to Rule 25 of Order 41 C. P. C. and an unwarranted order of remand gives the litigation an undeserved lease of life and therefore must be avoided. In support of the submission, he has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of P. Purushottam Reddy and another v. Pratap Steels Ltd. [ (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 686]. Dr. R. K. Srivastava submits that in case the submissions here-in-above does not find favour of the Court, in the alternative, on remand, the Cane Commissioner can only consider the points on which the Appellate Authority had remanded the matter and not to pass a fresh order under Section 15 (1) of the Act. Shri Jaideep Narain Mathur appearing for the State submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order which has been passed after considering each and every aspect of the matter and it has also been provided in the impugned order that at the start of the crushing season, there is no scarcity of sugarcane to the petitioner-mill. Shri Jaideep Narain Mathur appearing for the State submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order which has been passed after considering each and every aspect of the matter and it has also been provided in the impugned order that at the start of the crushing season, there is no scarcity of sugarcane to the petitioner-mill. In the event the appellant or any other mill after the commencement of the crushing season feels that there is either shortage or excess of sugarcane, he may approach the Cane Commissioner and the Cane Commissioner is fully competent to look into the matter and consider the same. In any case, it is the Cane Commissioner who is the competent authority to look into the matter. It has been urged by Sri Mathur that sale of immovable property is governed by the provisions of Transfer of Property Act, whereas the sale of movable property is governed by the Sale of Goods Act. The sugar is also a movable product, but it is not governed by the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act because of statutory intervention, whereby the special enactment has been made for the regulations of sale and purchase of sugarcane and its product. It is because of the statutory intervention that the Cane Commissioner has been appointed as the competent authority to look into the matter. Elaborating his argument, he submitted that while assigning an area to a factory, the Cane Commissioner has to also look into various factors as enumerated in Rule 22 of the Rules. Nowadays, more emphasis is laid on factors (f) and (g) as these are the most important factors while assigning the area. It is an undisputed fact that in the last sugar season cane growers had to fight prolonged legal battle to get their sugarcane dues on account of devious litigation in which the petitioner was involved, had stalled the payment of dues to the cane growers on one way or the other. Further, there was a serious law and order problem due to agiation of farmers. Therefore, the cane growers had showed unwillingness to supply sugarcane to the petitioner-mill. However, Cane-growers willingness is taken into account by the Cane Commissioner while assigning the area, but it is not mandatory that their willingness is always to be accepted by the Cane Commissioner. Further, there was a serious law and order problem due to agiation of farmers. Therefore, the cane growers had showed unwillingness to supply sugarcane to the petitioner-mill. However, Cane-growers willingness is taken into account by the Cane Commissioner while assigning the area, but it is not mandatory that their willingness is always to be accepted by the Cane Commissioner. It is one of the factors, which is taken into consideration by the Cane Commissioner. In the end he submitted that the main concern of the State is that the farmers are paid their due price and there is no law and order problem is created by the petitioner-mill. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties, it is necessary to refer the relevant provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder, which are reproduced here-in- below :- "12. Estimate of requirements.- (1)The Cane Commissioner may, for the purposes of Section 15, by order, require the occupier of any factory to furnish in the manner and by the date specified in the order to the Cane Commissioner an estimate of the quantity of cane which will be required by the factory during such crushing season or crushing seasons, as may be specified in the order. (2)the Cane commissioner shall examine every such estimate and shall public the same with such modifications, if any, as he may make. (3)An estimate under sub-section (2) may be revised by an authority to be prescribed. " "15. Declaration of reserved area and assigned area.- (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 Cane-growers Company-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. (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 of 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)" "rule 22. In reserving an area for or assigning an area to a factory or determining the quantity of cane to be purchased from an area by a factory, under Section 15, the Cane Commissioner may take into consideration- (a) the distance of the area from the factory, (b) facilities for transport of cane from the area, (c) the quantity of cane supplied from the area to factory in previous year, (d) previous reservation and assignment orders, (e) the quantity of cane to be crushed in the factory, (f) the arrangements made by the factory in previous years for payment of (purchase tax), cane price and commission, (g) the views of the Cane-growers Company-Cooperative Society of the area, (h) efforts made by the factory in developing the reserved or assigned area. " The object of the Act and Rules framed thereunder are to regulate the supply and purchase of sugarcane required for use in sugar factories and Gur, Raab or Khandsari sugar manufacturing units. The underlying idea of the Act is to ensure the maintenance of reasonable supply of sugarcane to producers and to provide for other allied matters, which include a fair return to the cane growers as well. The interests of cane growers and sugar manufacturers have to be protected. At the same time, balance is to be maintained amongst sugar producers inter se. assigned area as per Section 2 (a) of the Act which means an area assigned to a factory under Section 15. "crushing season" has been defined in Section 2 (i) of the Act as the period beginning on 1st October of any year and ending on 15th July next following. assigned area as per Section 2 (a) of the Act which means an area assigned to a factory under Section 15. "crushing season" has been defined in Section 2 (i) of the Act as the period beginning on 1st October of any year and ending on 15th July next following. As per Section 2 (n) of the Act "reserved area" means the area reserved for the factory under order of reservation of sugarcane areas made under Rule 125b of the Defence of India Rules, 1962 and when no such order is in force, the area specified in an order made under Section 15. A combined reading of Sections 12 and 15 would lead to a conclusion that at the time of declaration of reserve and assigned area under Section 15 the estimate as published under Section 12 shall be the basis for consideration by the Cane Commissioner for the purpose of quantifying the requirement of sugarcane for every sugar factory. The requirement of estimate and thereafter the allotment of reserved area is reasonable procedure for which no exception can be taken. The controversy arises when the sugar factory or occupier of a sugar factory do not either submit their estimate as provided under Section 12 (1) or if the estimates are submitted the same is modified by the Cane Commissioner or in any case any estimate, which is published by the Cane Commissioner with respect to a sugar factory which attains conclusiveness either by filing or not filing the revision before the Prescribed Authority and such sugar factory at any time before the order of reservations is passed by the Cane Commissioner, claims more sugarcane as against the published estimated requirement of sugarcane under Section 12. Section 12 of the Act which requires the sugar factory to submit their estimate of required sugarcane in the manner prescribed by the Cane Commissioner by means of order, the provisions of Rule 21 of the Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short), is also of much significance. Section 12 of the Act which requires the sugar factory to submit their estimate of required sugarcane in the manner prescribed by the Cane Commissioner by means of order, the provisions of Rule 21 of the Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules for short), is also of much significance. Rule 21 which falls in Chapter VI deals with the reservations and assignment of area reads as under: 0 (1)The occupier of a factory shall by August 31, each year apply to the Cane Commissioner, in Form 1, Appendix III, for the reservation or assignment of an area for supply of cane to the factory during the ensuing crushing season. (2)The Cane Commissioner may, for special reason, entertain an application for reservation or assignment of an area, made after the commencement of a crushing season. (3)Every such application shall be accompanied by a Treasury receipt showing that a fee of rupees two has been deposited in the local treasury. A bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule would indicate that the occupier of a factory by 31st August each year shall apply to the Cane Commissioner in Form-I, Appendix-III for reservation or assignment of an area for supply of cane to the factory during ensuing crushing season. Sub-clause (2) gives power to the Cane Commissioner to entertain application for reservation or assignment of an area made after commencement of the crushing season, of course on some special reason. If Section 12 is to be read along with Rule 21, it would be found that the requirement to be performed under Rule 21 is to be done at a later date after the whole exercise is undertaken under Section 12. It has been stated at Bar as well by the learned Addl. Advocate General that the estimates under Section 12 are prepared some time in March and April every year, whereas the requirement of submitting an application for reservation and assignment of an area in Form I, Appendix-III is at a later date i. e. upto 31st of August. This Form has many Heads and bears the heading "application for reservation and assignment of area". This Form has many Heads and bears the heading "application for reservation and assignment of area". In part A of the said Form, besides other particulars which are to be given by the occupier, item No. 4 requires the particulars of crushing of cane in the last three seasons which means quantity crushed in the lac quintals, number of working days, date of starting and closing the operation in the last three seasons wherein Part B item No. 10 mentions the name of purchasing centers that may be reserved or assigned and also the details of Rail or Road have to be given. In item No. 11 the names of any new road or rail center proposed to be added or deleted or transferred from the existing lists of villages attached to various centers are to be provided. The classification of the heads in Form I has been made in a manner so as to make it convenient to the Cane Commissioner to reserve such area and number of cane centers to a sugar factory which would be sufficient to meet the requirement of regular supply of sugar cane for the quantity which would be crushed in the ensuring crushing season. The various particulars which are required to be given in a Form provide a date and idea regarding actual crushing done by the sugar factories in the last three seasons and also the areas reserved or assigned to it in the last three years. Rule 22 also speaks for reservation and assignment of a reserved area to a factory and determination of the quantity of cane to be purchased by the factory under Section 15. 1 Section 12 deals with the estimate of sugarcane, which is likely to be consumed by a sugar factory in a particular crushing season whereas Rule 21 requires the sugar factory to apply for an area, which it wishes to get under reservation order or by assignment under Section 15 for the purpose of having the required supply of sugarcane as determined under Section 12 (i ). Apparently, the two provisions operate in two different fields and deal with two different aspect of the supply of sugarcane but in substance it is the quantity of sugarcane, which is essentially required to be determined for continuous supply to the sugar factory. Apparently, the two provisions operate in two different fields and deal with two different aspect of the supply of sugarcane but in substance it is the quantity of sugarcane, which is essentially required to be determined for continuous supply to the sugar factory. The requirement of giving the details of actual quantity of the sugarcane crushed for the last three seasons coupled with the area reserved and the new areas proposed gives an opportunity to the Cane Commissioner to regulate the supply of sugarcane in a more effective manner so that it meets the object of the Act. It should also be noted that in exercise of powers conferred by Section 16 of the Act, U. P. , Sugarcane (Supply and Purchase) Order, 1954, has been promulgated. Under clause 3 of the said order the occupier of a factory is required to give an estimate by 31st October to the Cane Commissioner about the quantity of cane that is required by it. Under clause 3 (2), a cane grower or a cane growers Cooperative Society may within 14 days of the issue of an order by the Cane Commissioner reserving or assigning an area under Section 15 of the Act, has to make an offer to supply the cane grown under the said reserved area to the occupier of the factory. Clauses 3 and 4 talk about the agreement to be entered into in the prescribed form between the occupier of the factory and the Cooperative Societies of the reserved area for the purchase of sugarcane. The purchase of sugarcane has to be for the entire crushing season and there is also a stipulation that the cane grown in the reserved or assigned area of a sugar factory shall not be purchased by any other person except the sugar factory concerned. It is gleaned from the various provisions of the Act, Rules and the above referred Order of 1954 that various factories submit an estimation of their requirements according to their crushing capacity on the basis of which the Cane commissioner passes the order of reservation. The philosophy is to ensure the maintenance of reasonable supply of sugarcane to the sugar producers and securing, on the other hand, the interest of cane growers. Besides this under the provisions of U. P. Sugarcane (Supply and Purchase) Order, 1954, an agreement has to be entered into. The philosophy is to ensure the maintenance of reasonable supply of sugarcane to the sugar producers and securing, on the other hand, the interest of cane growers. Besides this under the provisions of U. P. Sugarcane (Supply and Purchase) Order, 1954, an agreement has to be entered into. An agreement with respect to offer by a cane grower or cane Growers Cooperative Societies from a reserved area has to be executed in Form-A to the Appendix attached to the Act, for achieving the main object and purpose of continuous sugarcane supply to the sugar factory without there being any change of exploitation and unhealthy competition between the cane growers and the Cane Growers Cooperative Societies or inter-se producers of sugar, the reservation and assignment of an area has to be done in a manner which protects the interest of all the parties and gives a reasonable return of their investment to the sugar factories permitting the units to run economically and also securing the interest of the cane growers and their societies. The scheme, therefore, postulates for reservation and assignment of an area to one factory at a time and if one particular area is permitted to be occupied by two or more factories for the purchase and sale of sugarcane by willing cane growers the same may lead to various complications and inequitable distribution of sugarcane. 2 The submissions of the counsel for the respondents that without setting aside the order of reservation, it is not open for the appellate authority to remand the matter and the factors of Rule 22 are not mandatory are negated as the factors of Rule 22 are dependent upon the consultation with the Cane Growers as well as the occupiers of the factory. In the consultation with the Co-operative Societies, the main relevant consideration is that of the sugarcane dues and the commission to the Societies and Rule 22 (f) provides the arrangements made by the factory in previous years for payment of (purchase tax), cane price and commission is dependent on factor (g) which provides the views of the Cane-growers Cooperative Society of the area. Thus, it cannot be said that the factors as enumerated in Rule 22 are not relevant while making an order of reservation under Section 15 (1) of the Act, particularly with regard to the consultation with the members of Co-operative Societies. Thus, it cannot be said that the factors as enumerated in Rule 22 are not relevant while making an order of reservation under Section 15 (1) of the Act, particularly with regard to the consultation with the members of Co-operative Societies. Similarly, with regard to the consultation with the occupiers of the factory, Rule 22 (a) is relevant keeping the views of the occupiers of the factory while passing the order of reservation. As regards the submissions of without setting aside the order of reservation impugned in the appeal, while remanding the matter to the Cane Commissioner, the same is also negated, insofar as the Appellate Authority has rightly not set aside the order in question as the units in the region are functional operation and in case the order impugned before the Appellate Authority is set aside, there would be a problem for running of the units in the absence of sugarcane which is one of the essential raw material for production of sugar. The submissions advanced on behalf of the counsel for the opposite parties that the factors as enumerated under Rule 22 of the Rules are not mandatory in nature did not find favour of this Court, as Section 15 of the Act provides for consultation with the Co-operative Cane Development Societies and Rules 2 (g) and (h) of the Rules enumerate the conditions of the view of the Cane-growers Company- Cooperative Society of the area and efforts made by the factory in developing the reserved or assigned area. Further, they are co-related with the provisions of Section 15 (1) of the Act, thus, the submissions so advanced did not find favour. Further, the goods in question, i. e. sugarcane a movable goods and can only be sold in accordance with the Sales of Goods Act. In the instant case, sugarcane is a controlled item and as such, prices are being fixed under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act and the orders issued thereunder by the State Government and it is not open for the seller to fix the price according to his whims. As the price has already been fixed by the government and as such, it is incumbent upon the seller to sell his goods and is accordingly regulated by the orders of the competent authority. As the price has already been fixed by the government and as such, it is incumbent upon the seller to sell his goods and is accordingly regulated by the orders of the competent authority. 3 It would be appropriate to proceed further with the above backgrounds, the relevant paras of the order passed by the appellate authority are reproduced hereinunder : "-----------vihykfkhz fey bdkbz&fduksuh gsrq l= 2008&09 esa tkjh lqj{k. k vknsk ls izdv gs fd iwoz isjkbz l= esa mlds }kjk lapkfyr dqy 90 dz; dsunz foi{kh phuh feyksa dks O;kofrzr dj vkoafvr fd;s x;s gsa ;g lhkh dsunz vihyxzlr gsa foi{kh nksjkyk kqxj odzl dks vihykfkhz fey ls 49 dz; dsunz o vu; phuh feyksa ls Hkh 37 dz; dsunz izkir gq, gs tcfd bl fey ds }kjk iwoz lapkfyr 28 dz; dsunz phuh fey [krksyh] ckxir] uaxykey] eydiwj o eokuk phuh fey dks O;kofrzr dj vkoafvr gq, gsaa blh izdkj eokuk kqxj odlz dks vihykfkhz fey ls 08 dz; dsunz izkir gq, gs tcfd mlds iwoz lapkfyr 37 dz; dsunz vu; phuh feyksa dks] flehkkoyh kqxj fey ds {ks= ls 11 dz; dsunz] uaxykey kqxj dkweiysdl ls 07 dz; dsunz] fey bdkbz&[krksyh ls 20 dz; dsunz] eksnh kqxj fey ls 15 dz; dsunz] ,l0ch0bz0lh0 kqxj ls 08 dz; dsunz lehilfk vu; phuh feyksa dks O;kofrzr dj vkoafvr fd;s x;s gsa iwokszdr ls izdv gs fd xuuk vk;qdr us feyksa dh vko;drk ds n`f"vxr ifj{ks= esa xuus ds {ks=qy dk iqjkoavu fd;k o bl izdkj ,d vksj vihykfkhz fey dk xuuk {ks=qy foi{kh phuh feyksa dks izkir gqvk gs rc nwljh vksj foi{kh phuh feyksa }kjk iwoz o"kz esa lapkfyr jgs dz; dsunzksa ls lapkfyr xuuk {ks=qy Hkh vu; phuh feyksa dks izkir gqvk gsa ,slh flfkfr esa vihykfkhz fey bdkbz }kjk izlrqr vihyksa esa vurzxzlr xuuk {ks= ds leca/k esa vu;fkk vknsk ikfjr djus ls Ja`[kykc) ifjorzu gksxsa rfkk esjb ifj{ks= dh xuuk vkoavu O;olfkk izhkkfor gksxha xuuk vk;qdr }kjk isjkbz l= gsrq xuuk lqj{k. k vknsk tkjh djrs le; fu;e 33 ds 08 fcunqvksa dk /;ku j[kk tkuk vko;d gksrk gsa vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&15 esa Hkh xuuk lfefr ls foekz dh O;olfkk gsa vr% xuuk d`"dksa dh jk; lcls egroiw. kz gsa vihyxzlr dsunz foxr l=ksa esa vihykfkhz fey dks vkofuvr jgs gsa fdurq xuuk lqj{k. k vknsk esa bafxr ifjflfkfr;ksa ls izdv gs fd fey ls lecaf/kr {ks= dh xuuk lfefr;kw bl phuh fey dks xuuk vkiwfrz djus ds fo:) gsa mugksaus bl vkk; ds ladyi Hkh lfefr ds lapkyd e. My dh csbd esa ikfjr fd;s gsasa xuuk lfefr;ksa ds vf/kodrk rfkk foi{kh phuh feyksa }kjk izlrqr lekpkj i=ksa dh dfvax ls Hkh vihykfkhz fey ds izfr xuuk d`"dksa dk vkdzksk o vlarks"k ifjyf{kr gsa blds foijhr vihykfkhz fey dk nkok gs fd xuuk lfefr us mlds i{k esa xuuk vk;qdr dks izlrko izlrqr fd;k gsa i=koyh esa xuuk lfefr ds vf/kdkjh }kjk glrk{kfjr izk:i&4 dh izfr Hkh izlrqr gsa vihykfkhz phuh fey }kjk xuus ds foyfecr Hkqxrku dk myys[k lqj{k. k vknsk esa gs] tcfd vihykfkhz phuh fey us xuuk ewy; Hkqxrku dk fooj. k izlrqr dj dgk gs fd mlds }kjk lelr ns; xuuk ewy; dk Hkqxrku xuuk lqj{k. k vknsk tkjh gksus ds iwoz gh dj fn;k x;k Fkka xuuk lgdkjh lfefr ckxir] esjb rfkk nksjkyk ds izcu/k desvh esa vihykfkkhz fey dks xuuk vkoafvr fd;s tkus ds fojks/kh izlrko fopkjksijkur ikfjr gq, gs ftudh izfr;kw miyc/k djk;h x;h gsa lfefr vf/kodrk }kjk ;g Hkh dgk x;k gs fd vihykfkhz fey }kjk xuuk lfefr efy;kuk ds i{k esa tkjh nks psd vukn`r gq, Fks tcfd vihykfkhz fey dk nkok gs fd ;g psd xuuk ewy; Hkqxrku ;k dehku ls lecaf/kr ugha Fksa iwokszdr fojks/kh nkok rfkk vfhkys[kksa dk iqu% ijh{k. k xuuk vk;qdr Lrj ij fd;k tkuk vkisf{kr gsa------------" A finding of fact has been recorded by the appellate authority that the reservation centers have not been allotted to the Bajaj Hindustan limited as there was a dispute with regards to willingness of the cane growers society to supply their respective sugarcane to Bajaj Hindustan Limited or not. A clear 4 finding has been recorded to that effect by the appellate authority, which has been reproduced hereinabove, that on one hand, there was a resolution not to supply the sugarcane to Bajaj Hindustan Limited and on the other hand, certain officer bearers of Cane Co-operative Societies in the requisite Form-4 have shown their willingness to supply sugarcane to Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. As regards, delay in payment of cane dues, a finding has been recorded that Bajaj Hindustan Ltd. has paid the entire cane dues prior to passing the reservation order. It has also been stated that resolution has been passed by the Cane Cooperative Societies of Baghpat, Meerut and Daurala have been reversed subsequently. It has also been stated that cheques, which have been dishonored, on which much emphasis has been laid is neither in respect of the payment towards cane dues nor towards commission. All these are the questions of fact and as such, the matter has rightly been remanded by the appellate authority. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the basis of instructions, submits that fifteen days time may be provided for passing a fresh reservation order under Section 15 (1) of the Act. In view of above, I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority and as such no interference is warranted under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- (1)The Cane Commissioner is directed to pass appropriate order, in accordance with Rules, expeditiously, say, by 31. 12. 2008 positively after affording opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved parties. (2)It is made clear that either of the parties will not seek any adjournment before the Cane Commissioner. (3)It is also clarified that the Cane commissioner will not be prejudiced with the observations made in this order as well as in the order of the Appellate Authority and will be free to form his own independent opinion. (4)It is further directed that till passing of the order by the Cane Commissioner after remand, the order of reservation with regard to 90 centres, which are being disputed before the Appellate Authority and assigned to other units, shall be kept in abeyance. (4)It is further directed that till passing of the order by the Cane Commissioner after remand, the order of reservation with regard to 90 centres, which are being disputed before the Appellate Authority and assigned to other units, shall be kept in abeyance. (5)That Cane Commissioner is further directed that he will also take into consideration while passing the order, under Section 15 (1) of the Act, the sugarcane lifted from the 90 centres, which are being disputed, from the date of passing of the order, i. e. 3. 11. 2008, till passing of the judgment in the instant writ petitions. .