ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows– “To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 30.07.2014 as contained in memo no. 1637 dated 30.07.2014 passed by the respondent Cane Commissioner, Bihar by which the learned Cane Commissioner under the dictates of the Principal Secretary, Sugarcane Department and under the influence of Hon’ble Sugarcane Minister, Bihar has recalled the previous order dated 25.07.2014 as contained in memo no. 1599 dated 25.07.2014 (as contained in Annexure-8). To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature Mandamus to declare and hold that the statutory authority (Cane Commissioner) cannot be compelled/dictated to pass an order by an Appellate Authority without any appeal being preferred before him challenging the order passed by the original authority.” 3. Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer has straightway proceeded to assail the impugned order dated 30.07.2014 (Annexure-8) passed by the Cane Commissioner, Bihar, whereby and whereunder, he has recalled his earlier order dated 25.07.2014 and fixed the matter for rehearing. According to Mr. Giri, this order was not passed on the own volition of the Cane Commissioner who in fact passed the order dated 25.07.2014 in exercise of statutory power vested in him under Section 31 of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Mr. Giri explains that this order was passed at the instance of the cabinet minister and the Principal Secretary and therefore, the Cane Commissioner in fact had buckled under pressure and dictation of the higher authorities and as such the impugned order dated 30.07.2014 would be arbitrary and illegal. To that extent, Mr. Giri relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Purtabpore Co., Ltd Vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and Ors reported in 1969 (1) SCC 308 and also in the case of Manohar Lal Vs. Ugrasen & Ors reported in 2010(11) SCC 557 . 4. Mr. To that extent, Mr. Giri relies on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of The Purtabpore Co., Ltd Vs. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and Ors reported in 1969 (1) SCC 308 and also in the case of Manohar Lal Vs. Ugrasen & Ors reported in 2010(11) SCC 557 . 4. Mr. Giri, in fact has made his further submission by pointing out that the initial requirement to be fulfilled in course of the order passed by the Cane Commissioner either in the case of the petitioner sugar mill or nine other sugar mills, were absolutely flawless and therefore, the impugned order passed by the Cane Commissioner under the dictation of superior authorities would definitely be bad as it would amount to taking away his statutory power. To that extent, Mr. Giri has tried to support the earlier order passed on 25.07.2014 by the Cane Commissioner and his main emphasis in this regard is that such order was passed not only after considering the objections but also after hearing all concerned as would be well reflected from the order dated 25.7.2014 itself. According to Mr. Giri, there was also no appeal carried before the Principal Secretary, the appellate authority, so as to allow him to make any sort of interference in the order dated 25.7.2014 passed by the Cane Commissioner in favour of the petitioner. 5. Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State on the other hand has submitted that initial order passed by the Cane Commissioner itself was in complete violation of the mandate of Section-31 of the Act, inasmuch as, such order in exercise of quasi judicial power by the Cane Commissioner had lacked the necessary ingredient of being a speaking order. According to Mr. Prasad when the Cane Commissioner did not consider any of the objection of the objectors, such order being a wholly stereo type order in all ten cases could not have been to prevail specially when prior to even so called hearing of the petitioner and others, the matter was already brought to the notice of the Cane Commissioner for considering the objection of the land holders, cane growers and others before passing of any order by him. 6. Mr. Prasad in that regard has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharastra & Ors Vs. 6. Mr. Prasad in that regard has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharastra & Ors Vs. Prabhu reported in 1994(2) SCC 481 and also in the case of Manohar Lal Vs. Ugrasen & Ors reported in 2013(5) SCC 448 . Mr. Prasad has also submitted that in any event if a minister or a higher authority only brings certain information to the notice of the statutory authority that may itself amount to dictation so as to vitiate the order. 7. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent (respondent no. 7) on the other hand has not only referred to the detailed counter affidavit filed by him to show that the objection filed by the respondent no. 7 against the allotment of villages made to the petitioner was not at all considered but he has also gone to explain that the requirement of Section-31 of the Act cannot be said to have been fulfilled by passing of the order by the Cane Commissioner on 25.07.2014. To that extent he relies on a judgment of this Court in the case of Tapendra Chatterjee & Anr Vs. State reported in 2005(2) PLJR 495 which was affirmed by the Division Bench in the case of State of Bihar & Ors Vs. M/s Vishnu Sugar Mills Limited & Anr reported in 2011(1) BBCJ 202 . 8. Another limb of submission of Mr. Agrawal is that if by quashing Annexure-A, the subsequent order dated 30.7.2014 passed by the Cane Commissioner allegedly on dictation of the higher authority including the cabinet minister would lead to revival of the earlier order dated 25.07.2014 passed by Cane Commissioner which is equally a bad order being in teeth of Section 31 of the Act as well as directions given by this Court in the case of Tapendra Chatterjee (supra), this Court would not be required to quash the subsequent order dated 30.7.2014 as it would restore as also perpetuate the earlier illegal order passed by the Cane Commissioner on 25.07.2014. To that extent he has drawn support from the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, reported in AIR 1966 SC 828 . 9. To that extent he has drawn support from the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Ors, reported in AIR 1966 SC 828 . 9. This Court has not only carefully examined stand taken by the Respondents in their counter affidavit but has also perused the records and files produced by Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, which would go to show that for the first time the petitioner-sugar mill on 14.05.2014 in its application addressed to the Cane Commissioner had made a request for reservation of 60 villages for the year 2014-15. This application was processed in the file and the date of hearing of 26.06.2014 was proposed by the dealing assistant in his note dated 25.06.2014. The Section Officer also had sent the file to the Assistant Cane Commissioner on the same day i.e., 25.06.2014 for hearing on the issue of reservation of villages for the petitioner-sugar mill and the Assistant Cane Commissioner on 25.06.2014 had also marked the file to the Cane Commissioner for conducting hearing on 26.06.2014. There is however nothing more in the relevant file to show that in the case of the petitioner-sugar mill either the opinion of council by way of consultation was sought for or even notice for hearing was given to anyone by way of fulfilment of the requirement of Section-31 of the Act. This would become more clear from the following extract of the relevant file:– ^^esllZ fr:irh lqxj fey] cxgk] i0 pEikj.k ds fy, isjkbZ l= 2014-15 ls 20-6-17 rd ds fy, vijkEijkxr xzkeksa dh vkj{k.k gsrq lquokbZ 26-06-14 dks fuèkkZfjr dh xbZ gSA lquokbZ gsrw lafpdk miLFkkfir gSA iz0 inkf/kdkjh dk;kZy; dh mi;qZDr fVIIi.kh d`i;k ns[kk tk;A esllZ fr:irh lqxj fey cxgk] if'pe pEikj.k ds fy, isjkbZ l= 2014-15 ls 20-16-17 rd ds fy, vijEijkxr xzkeksa dk {ks= vkj{k.k dh lquokbZ dh frfFk 26-6-2014 dks fu/kkZfjr gS d`i;k lquokbZ gsrq lafpdk miLFkkfir gSA lgk;d bZ[kk;qDr g0@& vLi"V 25-6-14 iwoZ i`"B ij dk;kZy; fVIi.kh fnukad 26-6-14 dks Hkonh; }kjk fuèkkZfjr vijEijkxr xzkeksa ds vkj{k.k ij lquokbZ ,oa vxzsrj dkjZokbZ gsrq lafpdk miLFkkfir gSA g0@& vLi"V 25-6-14 bZ[kk;qDr vkns'k ys[kkfir ,oa 'kqf}rA g0@& vLi"V 25-7-2014 Cane Commissioner Bihar, Patna" 10. It also becomes clear from perusal of the Government file no-1/REGU-08-800-04/2014 that on 24.06.2014 even before such date of hearing was fixed by the office of Cane Commissioner either in the case of the petitioner-sugar mill or other sugar mills, the cabinet minister on receipt of large number of applications and representations of the people’s representative/local farmer representative had sent those applications/representations to the Cane Commissioner for their consideration and also apprising her as with regard to the issue raised on representations. The representations which were actually filed before Cane Commissioner included the application of Vinod Yadav enclosing a copy of the order of this Court dated 23.09.2013 passed in C.W.J.C No. 779 of 2013 as well as representation of at least more than 10 villagers forwarded by Vimla Devi, Mukhiya of gram panchayat raj Chandraha requesting that their village should be reserved for M/s Hari Nagar Sugar Mill. Similarly, yet another representation of more than 20 persons dated 31.05.2014 was filed by six Pramukhs and Mukhiya along with the number of farmers/cane growers who also had requested their villages to be reserved for respondent no. 7, M/s Hari Nagar Sugar Mill. Yet another representation dated 31.05.2014 was filed by the villagers and sarpanch as well as mukhiya of gram panchayat raj Dhadhwa which also contain signature of more than 100 farmers. 11. In fact the said file contains separate objection/application of 26 persons running into more than 150 pages. Unfortunately, none of these objections/petitions filed by the farmers and/or representatives/cane growers were taken into consideration by the Cane Commissioner while passing his order on 25.07.2014 and therefore, it would not be very difficult for this court to hold that the provision of Section-31 of the Act was not at all complied specially when the consultation with the council was also not made prior to 26.06.2014 when the so called hearing was conducted by the Cane Commissioner on 26.06.2014. 12. Thus the first and foremost question would be the compliance of requirement of Section-31 of the Act by the Cane Commissioner. 12. Thus the first and foremost question would be the compliance of requirement of Section-31 of the Act by the Cane Commissioner. Section 31 of the Act reads as follows:– “31.Declaration of reserved area.—(1) The Cane Commissioner may, having regard to the crushing capacity of the factory, the availability of sugarcane in such area and the need for production of sugar and after consulting the council concerned and the occupier of the factory or the occupiers of other affected factories and after considering any objection that may be raised, issue an order, by notification in the official Gazette, declaring any area to be the reserved area for the purpose of supply of cane to the factory during a particular crushing year or years and may likewise cancel any such order or alter the extent of the area so reserved: Provided that, in the case of a factory situated outside the State of Bihar, such declaration may be made only on receipt, by the Cane Commissioner, of an application in the prescribed form from the occupier of such factory requesting that an area in Bihar may be reserved for the supply of cane to such factory and on condition that such occupier establishes a branch office in the State of Bihar and deposits a security of five thousand rupees with a Collector in the State of Bihar and gives an undertaking in the prescribed form to purchase cane grown in the reserved area solely through a co-operative society of such area. 2. Any person aggrieved by an order of the Cane Commissioner under sub-section (1) may, within thirty days of the receipt of such order or within the same period from its publication in the official Gazette, appeal to the prescribed authority.” 13. A bare reading of Section-31 of the Act and its underlined portion would go to show that the Cane Commissioner has to first pass an order declaring the reserved area for sugar mills by taking into account three important factors, namely:— (a) the crushing capacity of the mills. (b) the availability of sugarcane in such areas and (c) the need for production of sugar. For this purpose, he has to not only consult the council but also the occupier of the factory or occupier of other affected Sugar factory as also consider any objection that may be raised as against proposed reservation. 14. (b) the availability of sugarcane in such areas and (c) the need for production of sugar. For this purpose, he has to not only consult the council but also the occupier of the factory or occupier of other affected Sugar factory as also consider any objection that may be raised as against proposed reservation. 14. In the present case, there is however no evidence at least in the file of the petitioner from which the order dated 25.07.2014 had been passed by the Cane Commissioner that either notice of hearing was given to any person much less to the objectors about whom the cabinet minister had already sent her letter to Cane Commissioner on 24.06.2014 to consider their objection. In fact there was no report by way any process of consultation gone into with the council for reservation of sixty villages for petitioner sugar mill for the year 2014-15 and onwards. Everything was in fact done in a day and that too without any trace as to where and in which case the Cane Commissioner had decided to conduct the hearing of 26.06.2014. 15. As a matter of fact, if this Court would find that the Cane Commissioner had not only violated the statutory requirements of Section-31 but had also acted in violation of the Court’s order dated 23.09.2013 passed in C.W.J.C No. 779 of 2013, wherein, specific direction was given to the Cane Commissioner to consider such objection of Vinod Yadav, the writ petitioner and yet the same was not considered. There would be thus no difficulty in holding that the impugned order is also in violation of the Court’s order and thus nullity in the eye of law as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Company Pvt. Ltd reported in 1996(4) SCC 622 . 16. There would be thus no difficulty in holding that the impugned order is also in violation of the Court’s order and thus nullity in the eye of law as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction Company Pvt. Ltd reported in 1996(4) SCC 622 . 16. It has to be also noted that the Cane Commissioner was passing the order for reservation of villages not only in the case of petitioner-sugar mill but for 10 other sugar mills and therefore, the procedure adopted by him of exactly same nature as quoted above in the case of the petitioner-sugar mill where the file had been initiated on 25.06.2014 from the level of dealing clerk and had reached the Cane Commissioner on 26.06.2014 who had passed his order on 25.07.2014 on the basis of his hearing all of them on one single day i.e. 26.6.2014. Thus the manner in which the Cane Commissioner had passed his order on 25.07.2014 would itself establish complete violation of the requirement of law laid down under Section-31 of the Act. A question therefore, would arise whether can such an illegal order would vest any legal right in the petitioner-sugar mill? 17. It is here that the subsequent development after 26.06.2014 and prior to 25.07.2014 has to be also noted. Infact it was made known to the Cane Commissioner that the cabinet minister on 24.06.2014 had desired to see the report on the objections which were filed/sent to the Cane Commissioner by the people’s representative, cane growers and others. 17. It is here that the subsequent development after 26.06.2014 and prior to 25.07.2014 has to be also noted. Infact it was made known to the Cane Commissioner that the cabinet minister on 24.06.2014 had desired to see the report on the objections which were filed/sent to the Cane Commissioner by the people’s representative, cane growers and others. The Cane Commissioner in his note dated 01.07.2014 in reply to the minister's query, had taken plea of hearing conducted by him on 26.06.2014, which for the sake of clarity is quoted hereinbelow:– ^^i`0 1@i0 ij ekuuh;k foHkkxh; ea=h dk ihr&i= dk d`i;k voyksdu fd;k tk;A phuh feyksa ds lkFk xSj ijEijkxr (Non Traditional) xkaoksa ¼tgka xUus dh [ksrh gksrh gS½ ds vkj{k.k ds fy, bZ[kk;qDr ds Lrj ls ^^fcgkj bZ[k ¼vkiwfrZ ,oa [kjhn dk fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk&31 (1) ds rgn vkj{k.k vkns'k fuxZr fd, tkrs gSA bl dze esa bZ[kk;qDr ds Lrj ls phuh feyksa ls izkIr izLrko ds vkyksd esa lquokbZ lEiUu gks pqdh gSA vc vkns'k fuxZr fd;k tkuk gSA ekuuh;k ea=h ds ihr&i= esa bZ[kk;qDr dks funs'k fn;k x;k gS fd fdlh Hkh izdkj ds vkns'k fuxZr djus ds iwoZ izfrosnuksa@vH;kosnuksa esa mfYyf[kr fcUnqvksa ij oLrqfLFkfr ls mUgsa voxr djk;k tk;A ,rn~ lafpdk ds i`0 153-2@i0 ij izkIr vH;kosnuksa ds laca/k esa lesfdr fooj.kh rS;kj dj i`0 157-154@i0 ij j[kh xbZ gSA vf/kfu;e dh lqlaxr /kkjk dh Nk;k izfr i`0 158@i0 ij j[kh x;h gSA d`i;k ekuuh;k ea=h dks lafpdk i`"Bkafdr djuk pkgsaxsA iz/kku lfpo ek0 ea=h g0@& g0@& 1-7-14 vLi"V ¼fpRrjatu 1-7-14 flag½** 18. On this explanation of the Cane Commissioner which was routed through the Principal Secretary, the cabinet minister on 07.07.2014 had sought certain clarification and information which again also for the sake of convenience is quoted hereinbelow:– ^^foHkkx ls ;g vis{kk Fkh fd ihr&i= ds vkyksd esa {ks=kj{k.k ls lacafèkr lHkh lwpukvksa dks lesfdr :i ls ladfyr dj voxr djk;k tk;A ;g Li"V fd;k tk; fd& 1- feyokj {ks=kj{k.k dh xr o"kZ dh fLFkfr D;k Fkh\ 2- oRrZeku o"kZ esa {ks=kj{k.k gsrq phuh feyksa dh D;k ekax gS\ 3- feyokj djk, x, losZ{k.k dh v|ru fLFkfr D;k gS\ fo'ks"k :i ls iwohZ pEikj.k ftyk vUrxZr fofHkUu phuh feyksa }kjk djk, x, th0ih0,l0 losZ dk ¼fdlkuokj] xzkeokj] Fkkuk la[;k lfgr½ laiw.kZ fooj.k lfgr losZ{k.k 'khV dh ,d izfr voyksdukFkZ miLFkkfir dh tk;A 4- {ks0 fo0 ifj"knksa ls izkIr vuq'kalkvksa dks Hkh layXu fd;k tk;A 5- fdlkuksa@tuizfrfuf/k;ksa ls izkIr f'kdk;rsa fdl fey ,oa fdl {ks= ls lacafèkr gS] feyokj@{ks=okj lqLi"V uD'kk lfgr layXu fd;k tk;A 6- ;g Hkh Li"V dh tk; fd {ks=j{k.k gsrq ;fn iwoZ ls dksbZ uhfr fu/kkZfjr gks rks mldh ,d izfr i=kpkj Hkkx ij j[kk tk;A 7- Sugar Cane Control Order esa {ks=j{k.k ds laca/k esa fufgr izko/kkuksa@fuxZr vuqns'kksa ,oa jaxjktu dfefV }kjk dh xbZ vuq'kalk dh izfr Hkh i=kpkj Hkkx ij j[kk tk;A mDr lHkh lwpukvksa ,oa izfrosnuksa ds lkFk lafpdk miLFkkfir dh tk;A jatqxhrk 7.7.14 19. Let it be noted that this order with the query of the cabinet minister was received by the Cane Commissioner on 15.07.2014 and therefore, the file was processed by the Assistant Cane Commissioner on 24.07.2014, wherein, he had recorded as follows:– ^^iwoZ i`"B ij ekuuh;k ea=h egksn;k dk vkns'k d`i;k ns[kk tk;A fLFkfr fuEuor gS& 1- dafMdk 1 ,oa 2 ds vkyksd esa lacaf/kr fdlh lafpdk ds i=kpkj Hkkx ij j[k fn;k x;k gS] ftls i`"B 159@i0 ij ns[kk tk ldrk gSA 2- dafMdk&3 ds vkyksd esa th ih ,l ds ek/;e ls djk;s x;s bZ[k los{k.k dh rFkk lesfdr fooj.kh lafpdk ds i=kpkj Hkkx ij j[k fn;k x;k gS] ftls i`"B 160@i0 ij ns[kk tk ldrk gSA 3- dafMdk&4 ds vkyksd esa {ks=h; fodkl ifj"kn ls vHkh rd dksbZ Hkh vuq'kalk izkIr ugha gqvk gSA 4- dafMdk&5 ds vkyksd esa lEcaf/kr fooj.kh lafpdk ds i=kpkj Hkkx ij jf{kr gS] ftls i`"B 157-154@i0 ij ns[kk tk ldrk gSA 5- dafMdk&6 ds vkyksd esa fcgkj bZ[k vf/kfu;e dh 1981 dh /kkjk&3 ds vUrxZr {ks= vkjf{kr fd;k tkrk gSA vf/kfu;e dh izfr i`"B 158 ij jf{kr gSA 6- dafMdk 7 ds vkyksd esa d`i;k vius Lrj ls earO; nsuk pkgsaxsA d`i;k g0@& lgk;d bZ[kk;qDr 24-7-14 ekuuh; foHkkxh; ea=h dh iwoZ i`"B ij i`PNk ds vkyksd esa dafMdk ¼1½ ,oa ¼2½ ls lacaf/kr fooj.kh lafpdk ds i=kpkj Hkkx ij j[kk x;k gSA i`0 159 nz"VO;A dafMdk 3 ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd th0ih0,l0 losZ{k.k ls lacaf/kr fdlkuokj@xzkeokj Fkkuk la[;k lfgr vfHkys[k phuh fey }kjk la?kkfjr fd;k tkrk gS tks phuh fey ds csclkbZV ij miyC/k gSa ysfdu th0ih0,l0 ds ek/;e ls djk;s x;s bZ[k losZ{k.k dh v|ru lesfdr fooj.kh voyksdukFkZ i`"V 160@i0 ij j[kk x;k gSA dafMdk&4 ds laca/k esa vHkh rd dksbZ Hkh {ks=h; fodkl ifj"kn ls vuq'kalk izkIr ugha gqvk gSaA tcfd blds fy, foHkkxh; i=kad 1157 fnukad 02-06-2014 ,oa i=kad 1253 fnukad 17-06-2014 }kjk lacaf/kr bZ[k inkf/kdkjh≶&lfpo ,oa ftyk inkfèkdkjh≶&v/;{k dks {ks=h; fodkl ifj"kn~ dh {ks= vkj{k.k ij vuq'kalk Hkstus gsrq vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA dafMdk&5 ls lacaf/kr fooj.k i`"V 157-154@i0 ij jf{kr gSA dafMdk&6 ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd fcgkj bZ[k vf/kfu;e 1981 dh /kkjk 31 ds rgr bZ[kk;qDr] fcgkj iVuk }kjk lquokbZ ds mijkar vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA vf/k0 ds laxr va'k dh Nk;k izfr 158@i0 ij jf{kr gSA dafMdk&7 ij d`i;k la;qDr bZ[kk;qDr egksn; ls eUrO; izkIr fd;k tk ldrk gSA vxzrj dkjZokbZ gsrq lafpdk miLFkkfir gSA g0@& 24-07-14 ¼,e0ds0oekZ½** 20. Thus on 25.07.2014 when the Cane Commissioner had marked the file to the Principal Secretary for its being placed before the cabinet minister, he had nowhere indicated that he had already passed the order as would also appear from noting of the Cane Commissioner dated 25.07.2014 in the file which reads as follows:– ^^i`0 1@i0 ij eku0 ea=h ds ihr i= ds vkyksd esa fn0 01-07-2014 dks lafpdk Hkonh; Lrj ls eku0 ea=h dks i`"Bkafdr dh xbZ FkhA i`0 2@fn0 nz"VO;A i`0 2@fn0 ds fuEury ij eku0 ea=h }kjk 7 ¼lkr½ dafMdkvksa ij i`PNk dh xbZ FkhA lgk;d bZ[kk;qDr dh mijksDr fVIi.kh va'k&d ij lHkh i`PNkvksa dk lE;d fujkdj.k dj lafpdk miLFkkfir dh xbZ gSA ftlds voyksdu gsrq lafpdk eku0 ea=h dks i`"Bkafdr fd;k tk ldrk gSA iz/kku lfpo g0@& vLi"V 25-7-14 fprjatu flag** 21. As noted above, the Cane Commissioner in his aforesaid note dated 25.07.2014 had either suppressed the fact as with regard to passing of his order in case of petitioner-sugar mill and 10 other sugar mills on 25.07.2014 or had infact subsequently passed his ante dated order and that was actually noted by the cabinet minister on 28.07.2014 and in such circumstances the cabinet minister had treated this as insubordination on the post of the Cane Commissioner as a serious matter:– ^^lafpdk dk voyksdu fd;kA ,alh tkudkjh feyh gS fd bZ[kk;qDr }kjk fnukad 25.07.2014 dks gh vkns'k tkjh dj fn;k x;k gSA tcfd bl lafpdk ds fVIi.kh i`"B&02 ij ekaxh xbZ rF;kRed tkudkjh bl dk;kZy;@dks"kkax dks fnukad 28.07.2014 dks fey ik;h gSA iwoZ esa Hkh fnukad 24-06-2014 dks ;g funsZf'kr fd;k x;k Fkk fd bZ[kk;qDr phuh feyksa dks {ks= vkj{k.k ds dze esa fdlh Hkh vkns'k fuxZr djus ds iwoZ izfrosnuksa@vH;kosnuksa esa mYysf[kr fcUnqvksa ij v|ksgLrk{kjh dks voxr djk;saA ijUrq bZ[kk;qDr }kjk ,slk ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% fnukad 25-07-2014 dks fuxZr lHkh nl ¼10½ vkns'kksa dks fujLr djus ds fcUnq ij foe'kZ djsaA jatqxhrk 28-7-14** 22. It was only thereafter that in the meeting held with the cabinet minister in presence of both Principal Secretary and the Cane Commissioner, it was noted that none of the objections of the cane growers/farmers/people's representation where noticed much less considered by Cane Commissioner and in fact the order of the cabinet minister dated 24.06.2014 was not at all complied by the Cane Commissioner. This fact was also recorded by the Principal Secretary in his note dated 30.07.2014 and was approved by the cabinet minister on 30.07.2014 which again for the sake of convenience and clarity is quoted hereinbelow:– ekuuh; ea=h ls foe'kZ gqvk bl dze esa bZ[kk;qDr Hkh mifLFkr FksA bZ[k ¼Ø; ,oa vkiwfrZ dk fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e 1981 dh /kkjk 31 ds izko/kku esa vU; vkifÙk;ksa dks Hkh n`f"ViFk esa j[kus dk izko/kku fd;k x;k gS ijUrq fnukad 25-07-2014 dks bZ[kk;qDr ds Lrj ls ikfjr vkns'kksa esa laHkor% bldk fopkj ugha j[kk x;kA lkFk gh ekuuh; ea=h ds ihr&i= fnukad 24-06-2014 esa mfYyf[kr funs'kksa ds vkyksd esa vkns'k fuxZr djus ds iwoZ lquokbZ ds Øe esa izkIr izfrosnuksa@vH;kosnuksa esa rF;ksa ds laca/k esa ekuuh; foHkkxh; ea=h dks voxr djkuk 'ks"k jg x;k FkkA bl izdkj fnukad 25-07-2014 dks ;Fkk ikfjr xSj ijEijkxr xkao ds {ks= vkj{k.k laca/kh vkns'kksa ds dk;kZUo;u ls iwoZ lquokbZ dh frfFk vFkkZr fnukad 26-06-2014 ds i'pkr vn~;ru izkIr vkifr;ksa@lq>koksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk U;k;kfpr gksxkA lkFk gh fnukad 25-07-014 dks ftu vkns'kksa dks iz[;kfir fd;k x;k gS ml ij lHkh phuh feyksa dks viuk i{k j[kus dk ,d volj fn;k tkuk Hkh [kqykiu gsrq mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA mijksDr ifjis{; esa xSj ijEijkxr xkaoksa ds {ks= vkj{k.k ls lacaf/kr fnukad 25-07-2014 dks fuxZr vkns'kksa dks fu"izHkkoh j[kdj fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 25 ds izkoèkku ds rgr fu/kkZfjr vafre le;&lhek ls iwoZ iqulqZuokbZ dj bZ[kk;qDr }kjk leqfpr vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk;sA lkFk gh [kqykiu ,oa ikjnf'kZrk lqfuf'pr djrs gq, izkIr vkifRr@nkok okj] fu"iknu fooj.kh Hkh foHkkxh; csc lkbZV ij Mky nh tk;A g0@& 30-7-14 ¼ve`r yky eh.kk½ (underlining for emphasis) 23. Thus, the picture now becomes complete that the requirement of hearing as professed and projected by the Cane Commissioner on 26.06.2014 was a mere sham and pretence. The Cane Commissioner despite being made aware by his superior authority on 24.6.2014 that a large number of objections of the cane growers/farmers/people’s representative were required to be taken into consideration had deliberately gone to pass the order dated 25.07.2014 without considering any of one them much less giving them opportunity of being heard on 26.6.2014. The Cane Commissioner despite being made aware by his superior authority on 24.6.2014 that a large number of objections of the cane growers/farmers/people’s representative were required to be taken into consideration had deliberately gone to pass the order dated 25.07.2014 without considering any of one them much less giving them opportunity of being heard on 26.6.2014. This Court, therefore, will have no difficulty in holding that such order dated 25.07.2014 passed in favour of the petitioner-sugar mill being a tainted and procured order and in complete violation of the spirit of Section-31 of the Act will not clothe the petitioner with any legal right. 24. A reading of Section-31 of the Act particularly its underlined portion, as quoted above, would therefore leave nothing for speculation that the Cane Commissioner has to exercise quasi judicial power and his such order therefore must have at least semblance of consideration to the objections. True it is that the Cane Commissioner is not required to pass a judgment like a court but when there were a number of objections filed before him by cane growers and others they were required to be considered for its being either allowed or rejected in course of reservation for villages for the petitioner sugar mill as ten other sugar mill. 25. In the order in hand which was passed by the Cane Commissioner on 25.07.2014 in the case of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-6 or two other sugar mills brought in counter affidavit of respondent no. 7, there is however absolutely no consideration at all to any of the objection filed by the cane growers or others including competing sugar mills. 26. It is this aspect of the matter, which assumes significance because even before hearing was allegedly held by the Cane Commissioner on 26.06.2014, the minister in charge on 24.06.2014 having before a number of complaints of the cane growers and others as with regard to reservation of villages to the sugar mills had already brought this fact to the notice of Cane Commissioner that while passing any order, such objections may be taken note of in keeping with the spirit of Section-31 of the Act. 27. 27. The scope of Section-31 of the Act in fact has been gone by this Court at length in the case of Tapendra Chatterjee (supra), M/s Vishnu Sugar Mill (supra), wherein, different directions were issued by this Court as with regard to exercise of power under Section-31 of the Act in the case of Tapendra Chatterjee (supra) in the following terms:– “On hearing counsel for the parties and the State Counsel and the Cane Commissioner, the Court deems it fit and proper to issue the following directions to be strictly adhered to in future for making reservations under Section 31 of the Act : (1) The Cane Commissioner must follow the statutory calendar strictly and must ask for and receive the reservation proposals as provided under the statutory calendar. (2) After holding meeting (s) and after hearing the parties on their respective proposals and after consulting the Zonal Development Council, the Cane Commissioner must pass a speaking order of reservation taking into account the proposals of the respective sugar factories, his reasons for accepting or not accepting or partly accepting the proposals of any of the sugar factories sand finally his direction regarding reservation of villages in favour of different sugar factories. (3) Reservation of traditional villages in favour of different sugar factories must be made at least for five years. In case during the period of five years, any of the sugar factories is closed down, it will be open to the Cane Commissioner to pass a supplementary order for one crushing season of for the remaining period of the reservation dealing with reallocation of the traditional villages of the closed sugar factory(ies) to other sugar factories after observing the requirements of notice and hearing as provided under Section 31 of the Act. (4) The reservation of villages other than the traditional villages shall be for a period of not less than three years. The provision for making a supplementary order in case the sugar factory closes down shall apply also in the case of these villages. (5) The order must be sent to Gulzarbagh Printing Press will in advance so that it is duly published at least a fortnight before the start of the crushing operations.” 28. The provision for making a supplementary order in case the sugar factory closes down shall apply also in the case of these villages. (5) The order must be sent to Gulzarbagh Printing Press will in advance so that it is duly published at least a fortnight before the start of the crushing operations.” 28. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Vishnu Sugar Mills (supra) had also affirmed the aforementioned directions given in the case of Tapendra Chatterjee (supra) in the following words:– "5. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the materials on record including the order of the learned single Judge creates very poor impression about the working in the office of the Cane Commissioner, shows not only ignorance of the provisions of laws governing the issues, but also arbitrariness. In fact, in view of the nature of the order of the learned single Judge, we do not see any justification for these appeals at the instance of the Cane Commissioner.". 29. This Court, therefore, will have no difficulty in holding that the order passed on 25.07.2014 passed by Cane Commissioner was not only against the mandate of Section-31 of the Act but also in teeth of the direction given by this Court in the case of Tapendra Chatterjee (supra). 30. The plea of Mr. Giri that such action resulting into impugned order was taken by the minister and the Principal Secretary without there being any appeal in terms of Section-31(2) of the Act, can also not be accepted in this case because the appeal could be filed within a period of 30 days, whereas the apparent anomaly and infirmity committed by the Cane Commissioner was exposed within a period of three days. Thus, even if the order passed by the Principal Secretary as approved by the cabinet minister on 30.07.2014 leading to the issuance of the impugned order by the Cane Commissioner for the sake of argument is taken to be an encroachment upon the power of Cane Commissioner under Section-31, quashing of such order would again revive the aforesaid illegal order of the Cane Commissioner dated 25.07.2014. 31. This Court, therefore, will have no difficulty in accepting the submission of Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent no. 31. This Court, therefore, will have no difficulty in accepting the submission of Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent no. 7 that writ Court in exercise of its discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would refuse to exercise its power for setting aside the order dated 30.07.2014 which would revive the illegal order dated 25.07.2014. Reference in this connection may usefully be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao (supra), wherein, the law was laid down by the Apex Court in the following words:– “The result of the discussion may be stated thus : The Primary Health Centre was not permanently located at Dharmajigudem. The representatives of the said village did not comply with the necessary conditions for such location. The Panchayat Samithi finally cancelled its earlier resolutions which they were entitled to do and passed a resolution for locating the Primary Health Centre permanently at Lingapalem. Both the orders of the Government, namely, the order dated March 7, 1962, and that dated April 18, 1963, were not legally passed : the former, because it was made without giving notice to the Panchayat Samithi, and the latter, because the Government had no power under s. 72 of the Act to review an order made under s. 62 of the Act and also because it did not give notice to the representatives of Dharmajigudem village. In those circumstances, was it a case for the High Court to interfere in its discretion and quash the order of the Government dated April 18, 1963? If the High Court had quashed the said order, it would have restored an illegal order-it would have given the Health Centre to a village contrary to the valid resolutions passed by the Panchayat Samithi. The High Court, therefore, in our view, rightly refused to exercise its extraordinary discretionary power in the circumstances of the case.” (underlining for emphasis) 32. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner-sugar mill on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Purtabpore Co. (supra) is also wholly misplaced. In that case, the Chief Minister had directed the Cane Commissioner to divide the area sought to be reserved into two portions and allot one portion to the private respondent and on the basis of such direction, the Cane Commissioner had allotted the areas. (supra) is also wholly misplaced. In that case, the Chief Minister had directed the Cane Commissioner to divide the area sought to be reserved into two portions and allot one portion to the private respondent and on the basis of such direction, the Cane Commissioner had allotted the areas. Here, in this case no such direction has been issued by the Minister rather the Cane Commissioner has been only directed to rehear the objection and decide the matter strictly in terms of Section-31 of the Act. 33. Yet another judgment referred by Mr. Giri in the case of Manohar Lal (supra) will have no application in the facts of the present case. In the case of Manohar Lal (supra) the allotment of land was to be made by the Ghaziabad Development Authority in terms of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 but the order of allotment was itself made by the Chief Minister and that was held to be bad. Here in the present case no reservation of villages have been directed by the minister who had only asked the Cane Commissioner to exercise his power after following the mandate of Section-30 of the Act. 34. Mr. Prasad learned counsel for the State is also correct in placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Manohar Lal (supra), where a clear distinction has been made as with regard to issuance of instructions to the statutory authority to take note of the situation vis-a-vis the order dictating the statutory authority. This court on an overall analysis of the facts of this case as discussed above is fully satisfied that the Cane Commissioner was not dictated in any manner to pass the impugned order and in fact the Cane Commissioner had found himself in troubled waters he had decided for rehearing by passing the impugned order on 30.7.2014. 35. On an overall analysis and specially the order passed in favour of the petitioner and all other orders passed by the Cane Commissioner on 25.07.2014 have been set at naught by the State Government with a direction for rehearing, this Court does not feel that any prejudice is going to be caused to any one including the petitioner specially when the order dated 25.07.2014 itself did not fulfil the requirement of Section-31 of the Act. 36. 36. Thus for the reasons indicated above, this Court does not find any merit in the application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 37. Before parting with this Court will remind the Cane Commissioner to keep in mind whenever the objections are decided under Section-31 of the Act not only the requirement laid down by this Court in the case of Tapendra Chatterjee (supra) as affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s Vishnu Sugar Mills Limited (supra) has to be followed in the letter and spirit but the record by hearing of such persons has to be also preserved because in exercise of power of judicial review of such an order by the appellate authority or the Court the decision making process can be examined only from such records. Reference in this connection may also be usefully made to judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Siemens Engineer & Manufacturing Co. of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in AIR 1976 SC 1785 , wherein, it has been held that whenever an order in quasi judicial proceeding is capable of being assailed either in appeal or by way of in judicial review in a writ petition such order has to be not only a reasoned order but the records thereof also must support such reasons. 38. In view of the fact that this writ application has now been dismissed, it is hereby directed that the Cane Commissioner keeping in requirement of the object of Section 31 of Act and law laid down by this Court in the case of Tapendra Chatterjee (supra) must decide the issue of reservation of villages for all sugar mills including the petitioner after considering objections and take his final decision within one month from the date of receipt of this judgment for which the date of hearing should be fixed by the Cane Commissioner by giving proper notice to all concerned whose objection has to be considered in terms of Section-31 of the Act, if necessary, by also publication of notice in newspapers. 39. Subject to the aforesaid observation and direction this writ application is dismissed. 40. Let a copy of this judgment as also the connected records be handed over to the Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, learned Government Pleader No.-12.