JUDGMENT Hon’ble D.K. Arora, J.—The petitioner M/s. Kumbhi Chini Mills Ltd. by means of Writ Petition No. 7297 (MS) of 2009 has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 21.12.2009, passed by Special Secretary, Government of U.P., Department of Sugar Industries & Cane Development so far as it relates to allotment of Mersanda Cane Purchase Centre of Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Hargaon, district Sitapur and M/s Govind Sugar Mills Ltd. by means of Writ Petition No. 7390 of 2009 has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 21.12.2009, passed by Special Secretary, Government of U.P., Department of Sugar Industries & Cane Development by which Tejwapur Sugarcane Purchase Centre has been assigned to Kumbhi Chini Mills Both the writ petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to operate the respective cane purchase centres i.e. Marsanda Sugarcane Purchase Centre and Tejwapur Sugarcane Purchase Centre. Thus, since both the writ petitions are the cross writ petitions, challenging the same order to the extent by which they are affected, as such, both writ petitions are being decided together by way of common judgment. 2. Heard Sri Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Akhilesh Kalra, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 7297 (MS) of 2009 and also appearing as Counsel for the respondent No. 4 in W.P. No. 7390 (M/S) of 2009, Dr. R. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 4 in W.P. No. 7297 (MS) of 2009 and as counsel for the petitioner in W.P. No. 7390 (MS) of 2009, Sri K. S. Pawar, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Hargaon as well as Lakhimpur Kheri and the learned Standing Counsel for the State. Facts, in brief, of Writ Petition No. 7297 (MS) of 2009 3. The petitioner sugar mill is an Unit of M/s Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at FMC Fortuna, 2nd Floor, 234/3-A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkota. The petitioner sugar mill is inter-alia engaged in the business of production and sale of white crystal sugar by Vacuum Pan Process. The petitioner sugar mill is an Unit of M/s Balrampur Chini Mills Ltd. which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at FMC Fortuna, 2nd Floor, 234/3-A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkota. The petitioner sugar mill is inter-alia engaged in the business of production and sale of white crystal sugar by Vacuum Pan Process. The petitioner sugar- mill was established in the cane crushing season 2006-07 with an installed crushing capacity of 8000 TCD and the crushing season 2006-07 was the trial season of the petitioner sugar-mill. 4. The petitioner sugar-mill commenced its crushing operation w.e.f. 29.11.2007 but due to inadequate allotment of cane it closed its crushing operation on 21st March, 2008 and, thus, it could run only for 114 days against the crushing season of 180 days. Accordingly, in crushing season 2007-08 against the allotment of 155.10 lac quintals cane production, actual sugarcane made available to the petitioner sugar mill was only 74.62 lac quintals and, thus, it could achieve only 48% drawl. Similarly, in crushing year 2008-09 the petitioner sugar-mill started its crushing operations w.e.f. 25th November, 2008 and it was compelled to close on 21st February, 2009 and it could run only for 88 days due to inadequate cane allotment. The petitioner sugar-mill had been made available only 53.90 lac quintals against the allotment of 128.97 lac quintals cane production. Thus, since the very inception of petitioner sugar-mill, adequate cane allotment was never made available to the petitioner sugar mill as per its crushing capacity. 5. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that for the current crushing season 2009-10 also the Cane Commissioner (Opposite Party No. 3) while exercising its power under Section 12 (2) of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1953) notified the cane requirement of petitioner sugar mill as 91.78 lac quintals and in furtherance thereof the Cane Reservation Order has been passed by the Cane Commissioner while exercising its power under Section 15 of the Act, 1953 readwith Rule 22 of UP. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1954’) and clause 6(1) (a) of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, for the crushing season 2009-10. 6. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules, 1954’) and clause 6(1) (a) of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, for the crushing season 2009-10. 6. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that although in crushing season 2008-09 the petitioner sugar-mill had attained the average crushing of 60488 quintals whereas the respondent sugar mill could achieve only 57053.76 quintals even then the cane requirement determined for respondent sugar mill was 90.46 lac quintals and it has been allotted 152.10 lac quintals cane production against the cane requirement of 91.78 lac quintals of the petitioner sugar mill, the cane allotment has been made only of 94.38 lac quintals. Thus, the cane requirement was not determined in consonance with the crushing capacity of the petitioner sugar mill. 7. The aforesaid data clearly demonstrates that the respondent sugar mill has been benefited illegally ignoring the parameters of Rule 22 of Rules, 1954. He further submitted that cane purchase centre, namely, Tejwapur which has been created after bifurcation of earlier cane centre Nakaha-II, having the cane area of 203 hectares and cane production of 1 lac quintal, ought to have been allotted/assigned in favour of the petitioner sugar mill, as the parameters of Rule 22 are in favour of petitioner sugar mill or in any case, even after deletion of the cane purchase centre in question from the cane reservation order of respondent sugar mill, the respondent mill would have excess of cane relatable to its crushing capacity and requirement. 8. The petitioner sugar-mill feeling aggrieved filed appeal No. 5(186)/2009-10 before the State Government for assignment/allotment of Tejwapur centre in favour of the petitioner sugar mill after deleting the same from the Cane Reservation Order of respondent sugar mill, inter-alia categorically representing therein that due to diversion of Achania cane centre to sister concern of respondent sugar mill, even though, the concerned society had passed its resolution in favour of petitioner sugar mill, the petitioner is facing shortage of sugarcane. 9. Simultaneously, the respondent sugar mill also filed appeal No. 5 (239)/2009-10 before the Appellate Authority seeking assignment of Marsanda cane centre in their favour. 10. The petitioner and respondent sugar mill filed their respective replies in the appeals. 11. 9. Simultaneously, the respondent sugar mill also filed appeal No. 5 (239)/2009-10 before the Appellate Authority seeking assignment of Marsanda cane centre in their favour. 10. The petitioner and respondent sugar mill filed their respective replies in the appeals. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner very emphatically asserted that the order of the appellate authority is not sustainable on the face of it as the petitioner sugar-mill was entitled for the cane purchase centre, namely, Tejwapur, however, while issuing the impugned order, though Tejwapur has been assigned to petitioner sugar mill but in lieu thereof Marsanda cane centre has been allotted to respondent sugar mill. The cane production of Marsanda cane centre is 3.18 lac quintals whereas that of Tejwapur is only 1.00 lac quintal. It is obligation of the respondent authorities to ensure reasonable, necessary, sufficient and continuous supply of sugarcane to a sugar factory in the crushing season with a view to avoid unhealthy competition and to watch the inter-se interest of the sugar factory in order to ensure that each factory has an adequate quantity of sugarcane required for manufacturing sugar having regard to the capacity of each sugar factory and since the proceedings before the appellate authority are in continuation of the proceedings undertaken by the Cane Commissioner, U.P, Lucknow, the appellate authority is also required to ensure equitable distribution of sugarcane between the contesting sugar mills while adjudicating the legality of the order passed by the Cane Commissioner, U.P, Lucknow. As such, finding of the appellate authority to the extent that the parameters of Rule 22 are in favour of respondent sugar mill, so far as Mersanda cane centre is concerned, is not only arbitrary but misconceived because at the threshold the Appellate Authority was under mandate to adjudicate the shortage or surplus of sugarcane between the parties and admittedly the respondent sugar mill has been allotted 152.13 lac quintals of cane production against their determined requirement of 90.46 lac quintals, determined under Section 12 (2) of the Act, 1953 whereas the petitioner sugar mill has been assigned only 94.38 lac quintals of cane production against the cane requirement of 91.78 lac quintals. Therefore, the required drawl of petitioner sugar-mill comes to be 97% in comparison to 59.47% drawl, required by respondent sugar mill in crushing season 2009-10 which is against the bonding policy 2009-10. Therefore, the required drawl of petitioner sugar-mill comes to be 97% in comparison to 59.47% drawl, required by respondent sugar mill in crushing season 2009-10 which is against the bonding policy 2009-10. The Appellate Authority though observed that on the face of cane reservation order of respondent sugar mill, it is apparent that excess cane allotment has been made in their favour, however, has opined that in view of geographical factor, the actual cane available to respondent sugar mill is less and therefore, the Marsanda cane centre is to be allotted to respondent sugar mill, which is not only misconceived but incorrect, as the average crushing achieve by petitioner sugar mill was 60488 quintals, whereas that of respondent sugar mill was 57053.76 quintals in crushing season 2008-09, even though, the respondent sugar mill could crush for 93 days, whereas the petitioner sugar mill attained 89 crushing days in the last crushing season achieving the drawl of 26.78% and 41.79% respectively. 12. The Appellate Authority has transgressed its authority by not considering the equitable distribution of sugarcane between the parties which is the primary obligation imposed upon the Appellate Authority under U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Act 1953. The Appellate Authority has failed to take into consideration that even if the drawl of 60-70% is taken into account as per bonding policy, the cane available to respondent sugar mill is suffice for 159 days and 186 days respectively for which drawl of 60% and 70% is achieved by petitioner sugar mill, the actual cane available is only for 93 days and 109 days. and even if the same drawl of crushing season 2008-09 is achieved by both the sugar mills, the allotted cane production of respondent sugar mill is suffice for 71 days whereas the petitioner sugar mill will be able to run only for 61 days if the allotment through cane reservation order is taken into account and, thus, apparently by deletion of 2.18 lac quintals of sugarcane by the exchange of cane centres in question by the Appellate Authority, would further compel the petitioner sugar mill to run only for 55 to 60 days. Brief Facts of Writ Petition No. 7390 (MS) of 2009 13. Brief Facts of Writ Petition No. 7390 (MS) of 2009 13. The respondent No. 4, The Govind Sugar Mills Ltd. is a Public Limited Company and is engaged with the business of Sale and manufacture of white crystal sugar manufactured through vacuum pan process in its sugar factory, situated at Aira, district Lakhimpur Kheri having crushing capacity of 7500 TCD per day and in this crushing season vide notification dated 16.9.2009 the requirement of the petitioner (respondent No. 4) has been notified as 90.46 lac quintal as against the requirement of 116.12 lac quintals which was notified by the respondent No. 3 in the crushing season 2008-09. In this season, so as to meet out the estimated requirement the Cane Commissioner, U. P. Lucknow has allocated 152.13 lac quintal of sugarcane, which is less 45.99 lac quintals as in the last crushing season the petitioner (respondent No. 4) was allotted 198.12 lac quintals of sugarcane. In the last crushing season at the drawl percentage of 26.78 % the petitioner (respondent No. 4) could crush 76.12 lac quintals and at the same drawl the petitioner (respondent No. 4) shall get only 53.06 lac quintals of sugarcane and at the same drawl the petitioner (respondent No. 4) would get only 40.74 lac quintals of sugarcane in this crushing season. As such, there would be shortage of sugarcane 49.72 lac quintals of sugarcane in this season. Besides it, the average of drawl of last three crushing season has remained 36.92% and at this average drawl the petitioner (respondent No. 4) sugar mill shall get only 56.16 lac quintals of sugarcane and the shortage of sugarcane would be 34.30 lac quintals. Apart from the shortage referred of sugarcane in the reserved area and assigned area of the petitioner (respondent No. 4) there is one more major factor which has been grossly overlooked by the Cane Commissioner that 70% cane area remains under water on account of river Ghaghra and river Sharda. In this year also, on account of floods the yield of sugarcane in the area of the respondent No. 4 has been badly affected and due to release of excess water from Banbasa Dam the expected yield is less than 300 quintal/hectare and the expected yield is less than 40 lac quintals in the area of Lakhimpur Kheri. The District Magistrate also apprised this fact to the Cane Commissioner. 14. The District Magistrate also apprised this fact to the Cane Commissioner. 14. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner (respondent No. 4) is that in case all the aforesaid factors would have been taken into consideration by the Cane Commissioner then there would have been no occasion to allocate the impugned centre to the petitioner which has not been even demanded by the petitioner in their reservation proposal. The respondent sugar mill in order to meet out the shortage of sugarcane requested that apart from those centres which were reserved in the last crushing season they may be further given 11 sugarcane purchase centres having cane production of 15.50 lac quintals of different sugar mills in the Reservation Proposal dated 31.7.2009 and out of 11 sugarcane purchase centres the respondent No. 4 has demanded six sugarcane purchase centres of Gularia Chini Mill, one centre of Belrayan Chini Mill, one centre of Hargaon Chini Mill and three centres of Kumbhi Chini Mill. The Cane Commissioner passed Reservation Order dated 10.11.2009 and by means of the aforesaid Reservation Order a cane area of 7117 hectare over which there is an expected production of 34.90 lac quintal has been diverted to other sugar factories which include the cane area of the impugned centre. On the one hand, petitioner (respondent No. 4) was facing shortage of sugarcane and on the other hand, petitioner (respondent No. 4) has been less allotted 45.99 lac quintals of sugarcane in comparison to last year. Apart from this, the Cane Commissioner has diverted 34.90 lac productions to other mills despite the fact that in the last season this diversion was only 30.39 lac quintals. All the said centres were being operated by the petitioner (respondent No. 4) in earlier crushing season. The Cane Cooperative Society, Hargaon, district Sitapur has also recommended for the reservation of the aforesaid centre in question in favour of petitioner (respondent No. 4) vide their reservation proposal dated 10.8.2009. All the said centres were being operated by the petitioner (respondent No. 4) in earlier crushing season. The Cane Cooperative Society, Hargaon, district Sitapur has also recommended for the reservation of the aforesaid centre in question in favour of petitioner (respondent No. 4) vide their reservation proposal dated 10.8.2009. It is also submitted that the respondent No. 4 (petitioner) has failed to indicate as to what illegality has been committed by the State Government in passing order dated 21.12.2009 so far as it relates to Marsanda sugarcane purchase centre and this Court in exercise of powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India shall exercise the power of judicial review to a limited extent because this Court is not sitting in appeal against the order of the State Government. Further submission of learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 is that Tejwapur sugarcane purchase centre has been carved out by bifurcating the reserved centre of the petitioner (respondent No. 4) and there was no such request on the part of the respondent No. 4 (petitioner) either for creation of such centre or for demand of the said centre. Therefore, there was no occasion for the authorities for allotting Tejwapur sugarcane purchase centre to the respondent No. 4 (petitioner). 15. Dr. R.K. Srivastava further submitted that the impugned Sugarcane Purchase Centre is the reserved centre of the petitioner (respondent No. 4) and the reserved centre cannot be simultaneously assigned to the other sugar factories. It is also submitted that the Marsanda Cane Purchase Centre was being operated by the petitioner (respondent No. 4) in the earlier crushing season (Reservation Order for the Crushing Season 2008-09, Annexure No. CA-5 to the Counter Affidavit) and the said centre is near to the petitioner (respondent No. 4) in comparison to the respondent No. 4 (petitioner) i.e. (25 Km. From petitioner (respondent No. 4) and 70 Km. from respondent No. 4 (petitioner). The Cane Cooperative Society, Hargaon, district Sitapur has also recommended for reservation in favour of petitioner (respondent No. 4). 16. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in the last season the petitioner (respondent No. 4) has lifted cane quantity of 1.23 lac quintals from the Marsanda centre. The petitioner (respondent No. 4) has made huge expenditure towards development. 16. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that in the last season the petitioner (respondent No. 4) has lifted cane quantity of 1.23 lac quintals from the Marsanda centre. The petitioner (respondent No. 4) has made huge expenditure towards development. It is also pointed out that Achania Centre is a new centre and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that it was demanded by the respondent No. 4 (petitioner). 17. The finding of the Appellate Authority in respect of Marsanda sugarcane purchase centre are based on sound appreciation of the factors of Rule 22 of the Rules and do not call for any interference of this Court. No prejudice is going to be caused to the respondent No. 4 (petitioner) as in this season also the respondent No. 4 (petitioner) is getting more sugarcane in comparison to the petitioner ( respondent No. 4). 18. Dr. R. K. Srivastava while placing reliance upon the judgment in M/s Basti Sugar Mill v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1995 All 309 ; Simboli Sugar Mill Ltd. v. Appellate Authority and others, 2000 (3) AWC 1867 and Writ Petition No. 3440 (MB) of 1995 M/s L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. v. State of U.P. submitted that a cane centre cannot be assigned simultaneously alongwith the Reservation Order. He has further submitted that assignment comes later and at the initial stage assignment cannot be done alongwith the Reservation Order. He further submitted that Mersanda Cane Centre was first time assigned to the respondent No. 4 (petitioner) whereas there was no mention in Prapatra -4 and the said centre was the centre of petitioner (respondent No. 4) from the beginning and it was incumbent upon the Cane Commissioner to take into consideration all the factors of Rule 22. 19. Lastly, it is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner (respondent No. 4 ) that the respondent No. 4 ( petitioner) has failed to refer any good ground which require indulgence of this Court. This writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 20. Sri K.S. Pawar, learned counsel for the Cane Society submitted that the Appellate Authority acted as per the proposal of the Societies. 21. It would be advantageous to have a glance on the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. This writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 20. Sri K.S. Pawar, learned counsel for the Cane Society submitted that the Appellate Authority acted as per the proposal of the Societies. 21. It would be advantageous to have a glance on the relevant provisions of the Act and Rules. The U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 has been passed 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. 22. The various definitions, given under the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 are relevant to be reproduced as under : “Assigned Area” as per Section 2 (a) of the Act 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. 23. 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 125-B 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. 24. Sections 12 and 15 of the Act and Rule 22 of the Rules being relevant, are reproduced below in extenso for instant attention : “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. (2) The Cane Commissioner shall examine every such estimate and shall public the same with such modifications, if any, as he may make. (3) As 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-Co-operative Society in the manner to be prescribed : (a) reserve any area (hereinafter called the reserved area), and (b) assign any area (hereinafter called an assigned area), for the purposes of the supply of cane to a factory in accordance with the provisions of Section 16 during one or more crushing seasons as may be specified and may likewise at any time cancel such order or alter the boundaries of an area so reserved or assigned. (2) Where any area has been declared as reserved area for a factory, the occupier of such factory shall, if so directed by the Cane Commissioner, purchase all the cane grown in that area, which is offered for sale to the factory. (3) Where any area has been declared as assigned area for a factory, the occupier 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.” 25. It would be appropriate to proceed further with the above background. 26. (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.” 25. It would be appropriate to proceed further with the above background. 26. 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 evident 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. 27. The main purpose of the Act is, to provide mechanism for reasonable, necessary, sufficient and continuous supply of sugarcane to the sugar factories in the crushing season keeping in mind the interest of the cane growers, the Cane Growers’ Cooperative Societies, the sugar factories and also inter-se interest of the sugar factories. The supply of sugarcane to the sugar factories in the quantity which may be reasonably required by them for production in a particular season or seasons is to be regulated by the provisions of this Act. The supply of sugarcane to the sugar factories in the quantity which may be reasonably required by them for production in a particular season or seasons is to be regulated by the provisions of this Act. While watching the interest of the sugarcane growers’, it is implicit and obligatory upon the authorities to strike a balance in the interest of sugar factories and cane growers. Since there may be sugar factories more than one in number, which may claim certain areas as the reserved area looking to their location, the obligation extends upon the authorities to watch the inter-se interest of such sugar factories also. 28. With a view to ensure regular supply of sugarcane in a healthy congenial and peaceful atmosphere and by avoiding any such order or action which may cause or is likely to cause any unhealthy competition between the sugar factories or cane growers or which may create or is likely to create any law and order problem or which may give an opportunity or is likely to give an opportunity to the sugar factories or cane growers to exploit their position illegally, the Cane Commissioner has been vested with the powers to reserve an area by allotting specific sugarcane centers to the sugar factories after following the procedure prescribed under the Act and the Rules. The orders so passed by the Cane Commissioner can be subjected to an appeal under Section 15 (4) of the Act before the State Government. The powers of the Cane Commissioner and the State Government are coordinate and co-extensive to each other. The Cane Commissioner while passing the order of reservation under Section 15 (1) of the Act has to take into consideration various factors and so is the case, in appeal, when the matter is being considered by the State Government. 29. The scheme of the Act with respect to supply and purchase of the cane finds specific mention in Chapter III. This Chapter provides for determination of estimated quantity of sugarcane and in what manner and by whom the areas would be declared as reserved area or assigned area besides the manner and procedure to be adopted in doing so. 30. The State Government in appeal exercises the same powers which are exercised by the Cane Commissioner while making a declaration with respect to reserved or assigned area. 30. The State Government in appeal exercises the same powers which are exercised by the Cane Commissioner while making a declaration with respect to reserved or assigned area. It is incumbent upon the authorities to take into consideration besides other relevant factors, guidelines, enumerated in Rule 22 of the Rules. It goes without saying that guidelines enumerated in Rule 22 are not exhaustive but are only enumerative which necessarily have to be taken into consideration by the Cane Commissioner for achieving the very goal of the Act, i.e. the regular supply of the reasonable quantity of sugarcane to sugar factory in such a manner so as to permit the reasonable return of their investment and to continue smooth production of sugar during the entire crushing season and on the other hand to protect the competitive interest of the sugar factories inter-se and also the interest of the cane growers and the Cane Growers’ Cooperative Societies, etc. 31. Rule 22 makes it clear that in reserving an area, the Cane Commissioner may take into consideration the distance of the area from the sugar factory, facilities for transport of cane from the area, the quantity of cane supplied from the area to the factory in previous year, previous reservation and assignment order, the quantity of cane to be crushed in the factory and the arrangements made by the factory in previous years for payment of purchase tax, cane price Commission and the views of the Cane Growers’ Cooperative Societies of the area, efforts made by the factory in developing the reserved or assigned area. 32. In M/s. Triveni Engineering & Industries Ltd., etc. v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2000 All 177 after considering the guidelines and various provisions of the Act at para 12 it has been held 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. May be in a given case one single factor may far out weight the effect of all other remaining factors. For example, an area may be right of the gate of the Sugar Mill and in such a situation distance alone can be taken into consideration for assigning or reserving that area in favour of that sugar factory. May be in a given case one single factor may far out weight the effect of all other remaining factors. For example, an area may be right of the gate of the Sugar Mill and in such a situation distance alone can be taken into consideration for assigning or reserving that area in favour of that sugar factory. It is for the authorities, who are experts in the field, to take into consideration all the factors and after balancing them pass appropriate orders which best sub-serve the interest of the sugar factory and the cane growers”. 33. This Court in Govind Nagar Sugar Ltd. Walterganj, Basti and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2001 ALJ 741, had occasion to consider the question as to whether the estimate of sugarcane as determined under Section 12 of the Act is conclusive and final for the purposes of reservation and assignment of the area and as to whether Cane Commissioner can entertain request of the Sugar Factories for additional sugarcane, which bona fide feels the shortage of sugarcane and require more sugarcane. 34. Following was laid down by this Court in paragraphs 42, 43 and 45 of the said judgment: “42. The Cane Commissioner, is therefore, entitled to provide additional reserved area or assigned area to a sugar factory which needs more sugarcane as against its estimate as prepared under Section 12 during the continuance of the crushing season. A harmonious construction of the provisions of the Act namely Sections 12, 15 and 16 and Rule 21 would necessarily mean that an estimate prepared under Section 12 of the Act is final for the purpose of initial declaration of reserved or assigned area, under Section 15 (1) and it would not be open for the sugar factory to raise any grievance regarding the same yet it is always within the authority of the Cane Commissioner to provide additional sugarcane to the sugar factory which bona fide feels the shortage of sugarcane for producing sugar during particular crushing season or seasons. Rule 21 sub-clause (2) also provides that the Cane Commissioner may, for any special reason, entertain an application for reservation or assignment of an area, made after the commencement of a crushing season. Rule 21 sub-clause (2) also provides that the Cane Commissioner may, for any special reason, entertain an application for reservation or assignment of an area, made after the commencement of a crushing season. The phrase ‘for any special reason’ though qualifies but does not negate the powers of the Cane Commissioner to provide for reservation and assignment of an area to a sugar factory if area allotted to it is not found sufficient to cater the need of the factory. There may be occasions when one sugar factory to whom a certain quantity of sugarcane is available from its reserved or assignment area for various reasons is not in a position to crush the entire sugarcane available in that area and at the same time there may be a sugar factory which finds shortage of sugarcane in its reserved area during the crushing season and in such a situation the Cane Commissioner can very well assign any specified area out of reserved area of the later factory to the first factory. The cases may also arise where a particular sugar factory is lying closed or has decided not to undertake the crushing in a particular crushing season for some reason or the other and in such case the areas which form part of the reserved area of such sugar factory can be assigned to any other sugar factory in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules.” “43. The interest of the sugar factory is not jeopardized or adversely affected as they are at full liberty to make appropriate request to the Cane Commissioner for either further reservation of an area or assignment of an area with a view to have an additional sugarcane in case they bona fide establish that area allotted to them has not been adequate and they are feeling shortage of sugarcane in the continuing crushing season.” “45. The answer to the first question, therefore, is that the estimate prepared under the order of the Cane Commissioner himself under Section 12 of the Act has to be adhered to by the Cane Commissioner at the time of passing an order of allotment under Section 15 (1) of the Act, unless there are exceptional reasons which might intervene or crop up between the period when the estimate has been published and the reservation order is made under Section 15 (1) ( not adversely affecting the rights and interests of other sugar factories, cane growers and cane Societies etc.) as well as by the sugar factories. The sugar factories cannot raise any grievance against the estimate so prepared at that stage, yet it is always open to the Cane Commissioner to allot more reserved area or assign further area if he is satisfied about the necessity of providing more sugarcane to any factory, during the crushing season, in accordance with the observations made above, in accordance with the provision of the Act and the Rules.” 35. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and gone through the record of both the writ petitions. 36. As far as challenge of M/s Kumbhi Chini Mills with respect to allotment of Mersanda Cane Purchase Centre of Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Ltd. Hargaon, district Sitapur is concerned, it is admitted position that Mersanda Cane Purchase Centre was the reserved centre of Govind Sugar Mills Ltd. and the same was being operated by said sugar mill in the crushing year 2008-09 and the Cane Society, Hargaon, Sitapur has also recommended for reservation in favour of Govind Sugar Mills Ltd. The distance factor is also in favour of the respondent No. 4 i.e. M/s Govind Sugar Mills. 37. Apart from this, it is also admitted position that at no point of time, Mersanda Cane Purchase Centre was ever demanded by the petitioner and all the factors of Rule 22 were in favour of the respondent No. 4 i.e. M/s. Govind Sugar Mills and there was no occasion for the Cane Commissioner to assign the reserved cane centre of the opposite party No. 4 to the petitioner. The Appellate Authority rightly appreciated the grievance of the respondent No. 4 as well as and has taken into consideration the geographical condition of the area while allowing the appeal of the respondent No. 4. 38. The Appellate Authority rightly appreciated the grievance of the respondent No. 4 as well as and has taken into consideration the geographical condition of the area while allowing the appeal of the respondent No. 4. 38. As far as grievance of the Govind Sugar Mills Ltd. (in W.P. No. 7390 (M/S) of 2009) with respect to assignment of Tejwapur Cane Centre to the Kumbhi Sugar Mills Ltd. is concerned, the record shows that the said centre has been carved out by bifurcating the Nankaha-II Cane Centre and the submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that once Tejwapur Cane Purchase Centre has been carved out of its reserved area and has been reserved to them, there was no occasion for the M/s. Kumbhi Chini Mills to claim the aforesaid Cane Purchase Centre merely on the ground that Nankaha -II sugarcane purchase centre has been assigned to them. 39. The learned Appellate Authority after considering the respective claims of the parties came to the conclusion that though the Tezwapur Sugarcane Purchase Centre in the present crushing season has been assigned to the M/s. Govind Sugar Mills; but this purchase centre is carved out by bifurcating the Nankaha II cane centre, and the same is assigned to M/s Kumbhi Chini Mills. There is also recommendations of Cane Society for Nankaha II in favour of M/s Kumbhi Chini Mills and, as such, all the factors of M/s Rule 22 are in favour of M/s Kumbhi Chini Mills and accordingly the Appellate Authority assigned the Tezwapur Cane Centre in favour of M/s Kumbhi Chini Mills. 40. The reasoning of the Appellate Authority is in consonance with the factors of Rule 22, further, as far as the assignment of new centre is concerned, it is for the Cane Authorities to assess the requirement of the particular sugar mill and according to its need the same can be assigned. Therefore, no grievance can be raised in this regard and the Cane Authorities are the best authority to assess the requirement of the sugar mill. After considering the respective claims, I am of the view that the claim of the respondent No. 4 with respect to Tejwapur Sugarcane Purchase Centre is not sustainable. 41. Therefore, no grievance can be raised in this regard and the Cane Authorities are the best authority to assess the requirement of the sugar mill. After considering the respective claims, I am of the view that the claim of the respondent No. 4 with respect to Tejwapur Sugarcane Purchase Centre is not sustainable. 41. As far as the respective requirement of the sugar mills is concerned, the provisions of Section 15 (I) takes care of the situation and in the event any sugar mill after the commencement of the crushing season feels that there is either shortage or excess of sugarcane, it can approach the Cane Commissioner and the Cane Commissioner is fully competent to look into the matter and consider the same. 42. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion, it can safely be said that Mersanda Cane Purchase Centre was rightly allotted to M/s Govind Sugar Mills Ltd. by the Appellate Authority and, therefore, claim of M/s Kumbhi Sugar Mills Ltd. fails and accordingly Writ Petition No. 7297 (MS) of 2009 is hereby dismissed. 43. As far as claim of M/s Govind Sugar Mills Ltd. with respect to Tejwapur Cane Purchase Centre is concerned, the same is also without any substance and in view of the observations, made herein above, the Writ Petition No. 7390 (MS) of 2009 also fails and is dismissed. 44. However, as stated above, if during the crushing season any of the petitioners feels any shortage of sugarcane, it is open for them to approach under the relevant provisions of the Act to the Cane Commissioner and in case any of the petitioners approaches the Cane Commissioner, the Cane Commissioner immediately will take necessary steps and will make endeavor to meet out its demand at the earliest. 45. In the result, both the writ petitions fail and are dismissed. There is no order as to costs. ————