Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 4147 (ALL)

Tejwal Gangwar v. State of U. P.

2016-12-22

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Tejwal Gangwar claims that he is a sugarcane grower and he is assailing the validity of the order dated 12.11.2016 passed by the Cane Commissioner, U.P. at Lucknow wherein in exercise of authority conferred under Section 15 (2) of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 assignment exercise has been undertaken. On the matter being taken up today, both Sri Rohan Gupta, Advocate, as well as Sri Ravindra Singh, Advocate, who represents Cane Cooperative Societies Union before this Court, raised preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of the writ petition before this Court on the premises that once the accepted position is that the petitioner in individual capacity, is before this Court, then he has got no right/locus to assail the validity of proceeding in question and the said right has been conferred to the Cane Cooperative Society Union and, in view of this, the writ petition filed by individual cane grower is not maintainable before this Court and is liable to be dismissed. The issue that is being raised before us is no more res integra, inasmuch as, this Court has already answered the issue raised, in series of decisions taking the view that individual cane grower cannot approach this Court by filing writ petition and his grievance cannot be permitted to be entertained. We find substance in the argument of learned counsel for the respondents. All the relevant provisions have been considered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Satnaam Vs. Vs. State of U.P. through Secy. and 8 others [Writ Petition C No. 2075 of 2014] and after considering the Division Bench decision of this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.1081 of 2013 (Dharam Veer Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. thru. Secy. and others) and the order dated 24.02.2012 passed in Writ-C No.10207 of 2012, Rakesh Chand Gangwar Vs. Cane Commissioner, Lucknow and Ors., this Court has held as follows: "We are of the view that the petitioner even if he is representing some more farmers at village Undra does not have a right to maintain the writ petition as the Cane Commissioner or the State Government is not obliged to issue notice to all the farmers to ascertain their views. In order to pass orders for establishing Cane Centres, the Cane Commissioner is to consider the interest of majority of cane growers of the concerned Cane Cooperative Societies, and it is the Cane Cooperative Society, which may be treated to be aggrieved as it is representing all the sugarcane growers attached to the purchase centres set up by such society, to espouse the cause of its member cane growers before the Cane Commissioner, State Government or in the High Court." In view of the above, we decline to entertain the grievance of the petitioner. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.