Order 1. M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited is the petitioner in W.P.Nos.8909 of 2010 and 29157 of 2012. 2. Mangalam, Naidumangalam, Thurinjapuram Firka Karumbu Vivasayigal Sangam is the petitioner in W.P.Nos.27465 of 2009 and 29158 of 2012. 3. Karumbu Vivasayigal Sangam Arunachalam Sarkarai Aalai, Thiruvannamalai is the petitioner in W.P.No.31223 of 2012. 4. Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is common, the writ petitions are disposed of by a common order. 5. M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited is a company. It runs 3 Sugar Mills in the State of Tamil Nadu. In this case, we are concerned with the Sugar Mill at Karaipoondi Village, Polur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. The said Mill was established during 1994-1995, with a crushing capacity of 2500 tons crushing per day (TCD). Subsequently, in the year 2006, the crushing capacity was increased to 4000 TCD. 6. Many firkas were allotted to M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited, in Thiruvannamalai District. In this case, we are concerned with the allotment of 3 firkas, namely Mangalam, Thurinjapuram and Naidumangalam in Thiruvannamalai District. These 3 firkas were allotted to M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals from 1995-1996 onwards. 7. When a new mill, namely M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills was established, during the year 2001-2002, these 3 firkas viz., Mangalam, Thurinjapuram and Naidumangalam were allotted to M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills, apart from other firkas. However, M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills suspended its operation during 2003-2004. 8. At this juncture, it is relevant to take note of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 made by the Central Government, by exercising its power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Clause 6 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, grants power to the Central Government to regulate distribution and movement of sugarcane. Under the said Clause, the Central Government has power to reserve any area where sugarcane is grown for a factory having regard to the crushing capacity of the factory, the availability of sugarcane in the reserved area and the need for production of sugar, with a view to enable the factory to purchase the quantity of sugarcane required by it. 9. Clause 11 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 provides for delegation of powers by the Central Government to State Government or any officer or authority of the State Government of the power that is exercised by the Central Government under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. 10. 9. Clause 11 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 provides for delegation of powers by the Central Government to State Government or any officer or authority of the State Government of the power that is exercised by the Central Government under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. 10. The 3 firkas namely, Mangalam, Thurinjapuram and Naidumangalam were again allotted by the Government of Tamil Nadu to M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited, by virtue of its delegated power, by issuing G.O.Ms.No.277, Agriculture Department, dated 25.10.2005. These 3 firkas were under the control of M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited, upto 2008-2009. 11. In the year 2009, the Commissioner of Sugars and Cane Commissioner passed an order dated 24.12.2009 allotting the two firkas namely Mangalam, Thurinjapuram to M/s.Bannariamman Sugar Mills Limited, Thandarampattu Taluk. 12. M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited filed writ petition in W.P.No.8909 of 2010, seeking to quash the aforesaid order dated 24.12.2009 of the Commissioner of Sugars and Cane Commissioner and also sought for a direction to the Commissioner of Sugars and Cane Commissioner to allot those firkas namely Mangalam and Thurinjapuram to them. 13. While so, Mangalam, Naidumangalam, Thurinjapuram Firka Karumbu Vivasayigal Sangam, also filed a writ petition in W.P.No.27465 of 2009 with the same prayer as that of M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited. 14. While Mangalam, Naidumangalam, Thurinjapuram Firka Karumbu Vivasayigal Sangam, supported M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited, Karumbu Urpathiyalargal Nala Sangam, Arunachalam Sugar Mill got impleaded as fourth respondent in W.P.No.27465 of 2009 and supported M/s.Bannariamman Sugar Mills Limited. 15. The only other remaining firka, namely Naidumangalam was under the control of M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited upto the period 2011-2012 planting season. For the planting season 2012-2013, Naidumangalam firka was also allotted to M/s.Bannariamman Sugar Mills Limited by the Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner, by an order dated 17.10.2012, along with the other two firkas already allotted to M/s.Bannariamman Sugar Mills Limited, viz. Mangalam and Thurinjapuram. 16. M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited filed a writ petition in W.P.No.29157 of 2012 seeking to quash the order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner and also sought for a direction to the Cane Commissioner to allot all the three firkas namely Mangalam, Naidumangalam and Thurinjapuram to them. 17. Mangalam and Thurinjapuram. 16. M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited filed a writ petition in W.P.No.29157 of 2012 seeking to quash the order dated 17.10.2012 passed by the Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner and also sought for a direction to the Cane Commissioner to allot all the three firkas namely Mangalam, Naidumangalam and Thurinjapuram to them. 17. In W.P.No.29157 of 2012, respondents 4 to 27 were impleaded by various orders and they are individual farmers except 22nd respondent -Karumbu Vivasayigal Sangam Arunachalam Sakarai Aalai, Thiruvannamalai. 18. Mangalam, Naidumangalam, Thurinjapuram Firka Karumbu Vivasayigal Sangam filed another writ petition viz. W.P.No.29158 of 2012 seeking to quash the order dated 17.10.2012 of the Cane Commissioner and thus supported Dharani Sugars and Chemical Limited. In the said writ petition, respondents 5 to 27 were impleaded by various orders of this Court and the impleaded parties are farmers. 19. Karumbu Vivasayigal Sangam Arunachalam Sarkarai Aalai filed writ petition in W.P.No.31223 of 2012 seeking for a direction to the Cane Commissioner to reserve sugarcane areas permanently, in respect of sugarcane areas which was earlier reserved to M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills Limited, instead of passing temporary allotment orders. 20. The Commissioner of Sugars and Cane Commissioner filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.29157 of 2012. The District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District, filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.29158 of 2012. M/s.Bannariamman Sugar Mills Limited filed counter affidavits in W.P.Nos.29157 and 29158 of 2012. Some of the individual farmers, who got impleaded in W.P.Nos.29157 and 29158, also filed counter affidavit. M/s.Rajshree Sugars and Chemicals Limited, the fifth respondent in W.P.No.31223 of 2012, filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.31223 of 2012. M/s.Madras Sugars Limited, the sixth respondent in W.P.No.31223 of 2012 also filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.31223 of 2012. 21. Heard the submissions made on either side. 22. Clause 6 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 that grants power to the Central Government to regulate distribution and movement of sugarcane is extracted hereunder: "6. M/s.Madras Sugars Limited, the sixth respondent in W.P.No.31223 of 2012 also filed counter affidavit in W.P.No.31223 of 2012. 21. Heard the submissions made on either side. 22. Clause 6 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 that grants power to the Central Government to regulate distribution and movement of sugarcane is extracted hereunder: "6. Power to regulate distribution and movement of sugarcane.- (1)The Central Government may, by order notified in the Official Gazette, - (a) reserve any area where sugarcane is grown (hereinafter in this clause referred to as "reserved area") for a factory having regard to the crushing capacity of the factory, the availability of sugarcane in the reserved area and the need for production of sugar, with a view to enabling the factory to purchase the quantity of sugarcane required by it; (b) determine the quantity of sugarcane which a factory will require for crushing any year; (c) fix, with respect to any specified sugarcane grower or sugarcane growers generally in a reserved area, the quantity or percentage of sugarcane grown by such grower or growers, as the case may be, which each such grower by himself, or, if he is a member of a co-operative society of sugarcane growers operating in the reserved area, through such society, shall supply to the factory concerned; (d) direct a sugarcane grower or a sugarcane growers' co-operative society, supplying sugarcane to a factory, and the factory concerned to enter into an agreement to supply or purchase, as the case may be, the quantity of sugarcane fixed under paragraph (c); (e) direct that no gur (jaggery) or khandsari sugar or sugar shall be manufactured from sugarcane except under and in accordance with the conditions specified in the licence issued in this behalf; (f) prohibit or restrict or otherwise regulate the export of sugarcane from any area (including a reserved area) except under and in accordance with a permit issued in this behalf. (2) Every sugarcane grower, sugarcane growers' co-operative society and factory, to whom or to which an order made under paragraph (c) of sub-clause (1) applies, shall be bound to supply or purchase, as the case may be, that quantity of sugarcane covered by the agreement entered into under the paragraph and any wilful failure on the part of the sugarcane grower, sugarcane growers' co-operative society or the factory to do so, shall constitute a breach of the provisions of this Order: Provided that where the default committed by any sugarcane growers' co-operative society is due to any failure on the part of any sugarcane grower, being a member of such society, such society shall not be bound to make supplies of sugarcane to the factory to the extent of such default." The power of the Central Government under Clause 6 is delegated by the Central Government to the State Government under Clause 11 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. The same is not in dispute. 23. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued order in G.O.Ms.No.101, Industries Department, dated 09.08.1993 constituting Area Delimitation Committee for demarcation of areas among Sugar Mills. In G.O.Ms.No.468, Industries Department, dated 06.12.1993, the earlier order relating to the constitution of Area Delimitation Committee was modified. 24. The Government of Tamil Nadu issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.217, Industries Department, dated 18.08.1997 directing that the Area Delimitation Committee shall continue to examine the area demarcation proposals in respect of new Sugar Mills and the Sugar Mills under Private Sector. Based on the recommendations of the Area Delimitation Committee, the Government / Cane Commissioner shall pass orders under Clause 6 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. 25. M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited was established in the year 1994-1995. The 3 firkas, namely Mangalam, Naidumangalam and Thurinjapuram in Thiruvannamalai Taluk were allotted to them, under Clause 6 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, besides other firkas. When M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills was established during 2001-2002, the above 3 firkas as well as other firkas were allotted to M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills. However, M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills suspended its operation within 2 years of its establishment. 26. While so, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.277, Agriculture Department, dated 25.10.2005 allotting 7 firkas, namely Mangalam, Naidumangalam, Thurinjapuram, Somasipadi, Keelpennathur, Veraiyur and Thiruvannamalai to M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited temporarily, till the revival of M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills Limited. However, M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills suspended its operation within 2 years of its establishment. 26. While so, the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.277, Agriculture Department, dated 25.10.2005 allotting 7 firkas, namely Mangalam, Naidumangalam, Thurinjapuram, Somasipadi, Keelpennathur, Veraiyur and Thiruvannamalai to M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited temporarily, till the revival of M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills Limited. The said Government Order was issued based on the recommendations of the 28th Area Delimitation Committee meeting that was held on 21.10.2005. 27. Based on the aforesaid Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.277, the Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner issued the consequential proceedings dated 25.10.2005. 28. The Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.277 was challenged in W.P.No.33929 of 2005. This Court dismissed the said writ petition on 05.12.2006 and upheld G.O.Ms.No.277. 29. It transpires that M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited wrote a letter dated 04.01.2007 confining its area to 3 firkas, namely Mangalam, Naidumangalam and Thurinjapuram, while 7 firkas were allotted vide G.O.Ms.No.277. This fact has been stated in the counter affidavits filed by the Cane Commissioner and the District Collector, in W.P.Nos.29157 and 29158 of 2012 respectively, and the same is not disputed in the reply affidavit filed by M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited. Therefore, though 7 firkas were allotted to M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited vide G.O.Ms.No.277, M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited itself accepted to draw matured sugarcanes from the 3 firkas that were earlier allotted to M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills, namely Mangalam, Naidumangalam and Thurinjapuram. G.O.Ms.No.277 made it clear that the allotment of the firkas to M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited is till M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills is revived. The Cane Commissioner passed orders during 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 allotting these 3 firkas namely Mangalam, Naidumangalam and Thurinjipuram to M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited, temporarily. In my view, such an action of the Cane Commissioner is not warranted/necessary in view of G.O.Ms.No.277. 30. While so, the Commissioner of Sugars and Cane Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 24.12.2009 allotting two firkas, viz. Mangalam and Thurinjapuram to M/s.Bannariamman Sugar Mills Limited, for the planting season 2009-2010. The said order was challenged in W.P.Nos.27465 of 2009 and 8909 of 2010. The impugned order nowhere refers to G.O.Ms.No.277 and the same is based on the recommendations of the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District. 31. Mangalam and Thurinjapuram to M/s.Bannariamman Sugar Mills Limited, for the planting season 2009-2010. The said order was challenged in W.P.Nos.27465 of 2009 and 8909 of 2010. The impugned order nowhere refers to G.O.Ms.No.277 and the same is based on the recommendations of the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai District. 31. It is agreed by both the learned Senior Counsels and the learned Additional Advocate General that the District Collector is not the authority to make such recommendations and it is only the Area Delimitation Committee, that is constituted under G.O.Ms.No.217 that shall make recommendations for re-allotting an area from one Sugar Mill to another Sugar Mill. 32. Since I have come to the conclusion that the impugned order dated 24.12.2009 is opposed to G.O.Ms.No.277, I have no hesitation to quash the same. Moreover, there is no recommendation from the Area Delimitation Committee for transfer of these 2 firkas namely, Mangalam and Thurinjapuram to M/s.Bannariamman Sugar Mills Limited, from M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited. 33. At this juncture, it is also relevant to take note of the fact that the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.243, Agriculture Department, dated 04.08.2008 allotting Thiruvannamalai South and Veraiyur firkas to the Madras Sugars Limited. G.O.Ms.No.243 was passed based on the recommendations of the Area Delimitation Committee. Hence, the same way should be followed in the case of allotment of firkas namely, Mangalam and Thurinjapuram to M/s.Bannariamman Sugars Limited. That is, there should be a recommendation from the Area Delimitation Committee for allotting these firkas to M/s.Bannariamman Sugars Limited from M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited. 34. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid conclusion, the impugned orders in W.P.Nos.27465 of 2009 and 8909 of 2010 are quashed and the writ petitions are allowed. 35. The Cane Commissioner passed an order dated 17.10.2012 allotting Naidumangalam firka also along with Mangalam and Thurinjipuram to M/s.Bannariamman Sugar Mills Limited, for the planting season 2012-13. This order is also based on the recommendation of the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai. As stated above, it is admitted by both the learned Senior Counsels for M/s.Bannariamman Sugar Mills Limited as well as the learned Additional Advocate General that the District Collector has no power and jurisdiction to decide about the demarcation of areas. 36. The reasons based on which the impugned order dated 24.12.2009 is quashed, will also apply for quashing the order dated 17.10.2012. 37. 36. The reasons based on which the impugned order dated 24.12.2009 is quashed, will also apply for quashing the order dated 17.10.2012. 37. Furthermore, the order dated 17.10.2012 makes allegations that M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited gave belated cutting orders to the farmers in Naidumangalam firka. It is stated therein that belated cutting orders were issued to 7238 farmers at the age of more than 12 months. Further, it is stated in the impugned order that 611 objection petitions were received during the grievance day meeting held by the District Collector on 10.09.2012 and in most of the petitions, it is alleged that delayed cutting orders were issued to the farmers in Naidumangalam firka. While these allegations are made, M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited was not heard. 38. M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited filed reply affidavit stating that there are only 807 registered sugarcane growers in Naidumangalam firka and cutting orders were given for 769 sugarcane growers, within 12 months and for the remaining 38 sugarcane growers, cutting orders were given within 13 months. It is further stated that, the impugned order does not give the exact details about the delayed cutting orders given in Naidumangalam firka, while taking away Naidumangalam firka from M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited. In addition to that, the District Collector sent notice dated 04.09.2012 to few persons for the grievance day meeting that was held on 10.09.2012 and thereafter, he sent recommendations, based on such meeting. The notice was issued to only one person by name Mr.Jayaprakash, President of Mangalam, Naidumangalam, Thurinjapuram Firka Karumbu Vivasayigal Sangam. 39. As stated above, the said Mangalam, Naidumangalam, Thurinjapuram Firka Karumbu Vivasayigal Sangam, supported M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited. Of course, some of the office bearers got impleaded in these writ petitions and supported the case of M/s.Bannariamman Sugar Mills Limited. In any event, sending notice to only one person in Naidumangalam firka cannot be a ground for passing the impugned order. 40. In these circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.Bannariamman Sugar Mills Limited as well as the learned Additional Advocate General accepted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter shall be remanded for fresh consideration. 41. 40. In these circumstances, the learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.Bannariamman Sugar Mills Limited as well as the learned Additional Advocate General accepted that the impugned order is liable to be quashed and the matter shall be remanded for fresh consideration. 41. In my view, the impugned order dated 17.10.2012 is opposed to G.O.Ms.No.277 and the same was passed based on the recommendations of the District Collector, Thiruvannamalai, when he has no authority to decide on these issues and it is only for the Area Delimitation Committee to decide the same. 42. For all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 17.10.2012 of the Cane Commissioner that is impugned in W.P.Nos.29157 and 29158 is quashed and the writ petitions are allowed. 43. G.O.Ms.No.277 has already been upheld by this Court in W.P.No.33929 of 2005. However, that is not final. Whenever the Area Delimitation Committee consider the objections regarding demarcation of areas, the Sugar Mills, the Sugar Mills and the Agriculturists Association or their representatives and the sugarcane growers should be put on notice by issuing necessary publication in the leading newspapers having wide circulation in the locality. Such a publication about the hearing can also be made in the local T.V. channel. The Area Delimitation Committee shall also publish the hearing notice in the notice boards of the Village Panchayat in the Panchayat Union concerned, indicating the date, time and hearing of the objections. On the date so fixed, the Area Delimitation Committee can hear all concerned and submit a report to the Cane Commissioner, who will pass an order on Delimitation, specifying the areas allotted to the respective Sugar Mills. 44. At this juncture, both the learned Senior Counsel for M/s.Bannariamman Sugar Mills Limited as well as the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that till the matter is decided by the Cane Commissioner, based on the recommendations of the Area Delimitation Committee, as an interim measure, the present allottee under the impugned order, may continue or in the alternative, the disputed firkas may be free mill area and any party could register the sugarcanes from the farmers. 45. I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for M/s.Bannariamman Sugar Mills Limited and the learned Additional Advocate General. 45. I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned Senior Counsel for M/s.Bannariamman Sugar Mills Limited and the learned Additional Advocate General. Since I have held that the impugned order allotting the 3 firkas namely Mangalam, Naidumangalam and Thurinjapuram to M/s.Bannariamman Sugar Mills Limited is contrary to G.O.Ms.No.277 and is without jurisdiction, as the same is based on the recommendations of the District Collector, the allottee under the impugned order cannot seek to have the areas, until a decision is made. 46. Further, I am also not inclined to make the area a free one for anybody to have a field day. When the Government issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.277 allotting the 3 firkas, based on the recommendations of the Area Delimitation Committee, the same cannot be interfered with, unless another Order is passed by the Government or Cane Commissioner, based on the recommendations of the competent Area Delimitation Committee. Therefore, M/s.Dharani Sugar Mills and Chemicals Limited shall continue to have those areas until it is lawfully modified. If any complaint is received or otherwise the reasons mentioned in Clause 6 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 warrants reallocation of areas, the Area Delimitation Committee and the Government/Cane Commissioner can exercise their power under Clause 6 read with Clause 11 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and re-allot the areas. 47. The writ petition viz. W.P.No.31223 of 2012 is filed by Karumbu Vivasayigal Sangam Arunachalam Sarkarai Aalai seeking direction to the Cane Commissioner to pass orders under Clause 6 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, and reserve Sugarcane areas permanently in respect of sugarcane areas which was earlier reserved to M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills Limited, instead of passing temporary allotment orders. 48. In my view, G.O.Ms.No.277 was a permanent one allotting 7 firkas to M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited. However, M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited confined its area to 3 firkas, namely Mangalam, Naidumangalam and Thurinjapuram, from the 7 firkas allotted vide G.O.Ms.No.277. Hence, in my view, these 3 firkas are allotted to M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited, as a permanent measure, in the sense that these areas could be retained by M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited, till M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills is revived. 49. It is admitted that M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills has not yet revived. Hence, in my view, these 3 firkas are allotted to M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited, as a permanent measure, in the sense that these areas could be retained by M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited, till M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills is revived. 49. It is admitted that M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills has not yet revived. Hence, as per G.O.Ms.No.277, these 3 firkas viz., Mangalam, Naidumangalam and Thurinjapuram are permanently allotted to M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited, until the same is modified, in the manner known to law. 50. As far as Veraiyur and Thiruvannamalai are concerned, that is covered by G.O.Ms.No.277, and the same were re-allotted to M/s.Madras Sugars Limited by G.O.Ms.No.243 based on the recommendations of the Area Delimitation Committee, when M/s.Madras Sugars Limited was established. Hence, it is also a permanent allotment and the Cane Commissioner cannot issue year wise order relating to these 2 firkas until the same is modified by another Government Order or by the order of the Cane Commissioner, based on the recommendations of the Area Delimitation Committee. 51. However, the remaining 2 firkas, namely Somasipadi and Keelpennathur, that were allotted to M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited in G.O.Ms.No.277, were given up by M/s.Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited and the same were temporarily allotted to M/s.Rajshree Sugars and Chemicals Limited, by the Cane Commissioner, on year wise basis. 52. The Commissioner of Sugars / the Cane Commissioner, is directed to decide about the permanent allotment of these 2 firkas namely, Somasipadi and Keelpennathur, to M/s.Rajshree Sugars and Chemicals Limited, particularly when no other party is disputing the same, after getting report from the Area Delimitation Committee. 53. Apart from the aforesaid 7 firkas, Vettavalam firka was also allotted to M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills Limited, when M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills Limited was established during the year 2001-2002. The Cane Commissioner is directed to permanently allot Vettavalam to some Sugar Mills based on the recommendation of the Area Delimitation Committee. 54. Since there is no Government Order allotting other areas on permanent basis like G.O.Ms.No.277 and G.O.Ms.No.243, the Commissioner of Sugars / Cane Commissioner is directed to pass order permanently allotting the rest of the areas that were allotted to M/s.Arunachalam Sugar Mills Limited, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 55. 55. In the result, the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.27465 of 2009, 8909 of 2010, 29157 and 29158 of 2012 are allowed and the writ petition in W.P.No.31223 of 2012 is disposed of with the above observation and direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.