Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2739 (ALL)

Ravindra Ahlawat v. State of U. P.

2019-12-09

PANKAJ MITHAL, YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddhartha Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. Sri Ravindra Singh and Sri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the parties who claim to be necessary parties but have not been impleaded, have also been heard. 2. The petitioner who has stated himself to be the Chairman of Cane Development Council, Daraula, Meerut had been granted authorisation by an order dated 18.10.2017 to watch and check weighments at the cane purchase centres within the zone concerned. The aforesaid authorisation had been made by the Cane Commissioner, Sugarcane and Sugar, U.P. (in short 'the Cane Commissioner') under Rule 29 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954, [the Rules, 1954]. 3. The Cane Commissioner by the order impugned dated 12.04.2018 has divested him of the power to watch and check the weighments etc., as granted in terms of the earlier order dated 18.10.2017. The order withdrawing the authorisation granted to the petitioner has referred to some enquiry report submitted by an enquiry team constituted by the District Magistrate. 4. The order withdrawing the authorisation issued under Rule 29 of the Rules, 1954 is sought to be assailed on the ground that the same has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without serving him a show cause notice. 5. In order to appreciate the controversy the provisions under the Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953, [the Act, 1953] and the rules made thereudner namely the Rules, 1954 may be referred to. 6. The aforementioned Act, 1953 and the Rules, 1954 contain detailed and elaborate provisions regarding supply of the sugarcane by the cane growers, its purchase by the sugar factories and payment of price thereof. In terms of the scheme of the Act, 1953, a mechanism is provided for ensuring the required continuous supply of sugarcane to the sugar factories during the crushing season. In terms of the scheme of the Act, 1953, a mechanism is provided for ensuring the required continuous supply of sugarcane to the sugar factories during the crushing season. Keeping in mind the interest of the sugarcane growers, cane growers' co-operative societies, sugar factories and also the inter se interest of the sugar factories in the area, the supply of sugarcane to the sugar factories in the quantity which may reasonably be required by them for production in a particular crushing season is regulated by the provisions of the Act, 1953. 7. The Act, 1953 and the Rules, 1954 also provide for an administrative mechanism for inspection of the cane purchase centres and also for checking of the weighments, weigh-bridges and weights. 8. In addition, under Chapter VIII of the Rules, 1954, which relates to weighments, the Cane Commissioner is empowered to authorise any person including such employees and representatives of cane grower's co-operative societies as he may consider necessary to watch or check weighments, weigh-bridges and weights and also to examine the parchas in which the weights and prices of the cane are recorded. 9. Section 11 of the Act, 1953 empowers the State Government to appoint any person or designate such officers of the Government as it thinks fit to be Inspectors within such local limits as may be assigned to them. The Inspectors are required to perform the duties and exercise the powers conferred upon them under the Act, 1953. For ease of reference Section 11 is being extracted below:- “11. Inspectors.—(1) The State Government may for purposes of this Act appoint any person or designate such officers of the Government as it thinks fit to be Inspectors within such local limits as may be assigned to them. (2) The Inspectors shall perform the duties and exercise the powers conferred or imposed upon them by or under this Act.” 10. Chapter V of the Rules, 1954 relates to the Inspectors, and in terms of Rule 19 contained thereunder, the Cane Commissioner shall be ex officio Inspector for the whole of the State. The Commissioners, the Collectors, the Sub-Divisional Officers, the District Planning Officers, the Deputy Cane Commissioners, the Assistant Cane Commissioners, the Range Co-ordination Officers, the District Cane Officers, the Additional District Cane Officers and the Senior Cane Development Inspectors shall be ex officio Inspectors within their respective jurisdiction. The Commissioners, the Collectors, the Sub-Divisional Officers, the District Planning Officers, the Deputy Cane Commissioners, the Assistant Cane Commissioners, the Range Co-ordination Officers, the District Cane Officers, the Additional District Cane Officers and the Senior Cane Development Inspectors shall be ex officio Inspectors within their respective jurisdiction. In terms of the proviso to Rule 19 the Cane Commissioner may with the object that the inspection may be more effective has been empowered to extend the jurisdiction of the ex officio Inspectors other than the Commissioners, the Collectors, the Sub-Divisional Officers, the District Planning Officers and for the said purpose he may form special checking squads headed by such ex officio Inspectors. The powers and responsibilities of the Inspectors have been enumerated under Rule 20. For ready reference Rules 19 and 20 of the Rules, 1954, referred to above, are being reproduced below:- “19. The Cane Commissioner and the Sugar Commissioner shall be ex officio Inspectors for the whole of the State. The Commissioners, the Collectors, the Sub-Divisional Officers, the District Planning Officers, the Deputy Cane Commissioners, the Assistant Cane Commissioners, the Range Co-ordination Officers, the District Cane Officers, the Additional District Cane Officers and the Senior Cane Development Inspectors shall be ex officio Inspectors within their respective jurisdiction. Provided that where necessary the Cane Commissioner or the Sugar Commissioner, as the case may be, may with the object that the inspection may be more effective, by order extend the jurisdiction of ex officio Inspectors other than the Commissioners, the Collectors, the Sub-Divisional Officers, the District Planning Officers and may from special checking squads headed by such ex officio Inspectors. 20. Every Inspector may, within the local limits of his jurisdiction and with such assistance as may be necessary— (a) enter any factory or other place which is used or which he has reason to believe is being used as a purchasing center or for the maintenance of any records, registers, accounts or other documents relevant thereto. (b) examine the weighbridge or weights used, kept or possessed for the weighment or purchase of cane. (c) cause any vehicle carrying cane or other consignments of cane to be weighed or re-weighed in his presence. (d) check weighments, purchases and payments made. (e) inspect factory roads, cattlesheds, cattle troughs and lighting arrangements made for weighments of cane. (f) examine the records showing the amount of cane purchased and crushed. (c) cause any vehicle carrying cane or other consignments of cane to be weighed or re-weighed in his presence. (d) check weighments, purchases and payments made. (e) inspect factory roads, cattlesheds, cattle troughs and lighting arrangements made for weighments of cane. (f) examine the records showing the amount of cane purchased and crushed. (g) call for from the occupier of a factory or his employee, any information relating to the purchase, supply, crushing of cane and payment of cane price. (h) issue from time to time such instructions as may be necessary to ensure equitable purchase of cane. (i) examine any records, registers, accounts or documents of Cane-growers' Co-operative Societies. (j) examine any record, register or documents or call for any information relating to the payment of purchase tax, commission and price of cane. (k) take into his possession and remove from the premises of a factory or purchasing center such records, registers, documents statements and returns, maintained or caused to be maintained by the occupier of a factory as he may require for the purpose of any enquiry or examination, and (l) exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying out the purposes of the Act and these Rules.” 11. Chapter VIII of the Rules, 1954 may also be taken note of which is in respect of weighments, and whereunder in terms of Rule 29 the Cane Commissioner is empowered to authorise any person including such employees and representatives of cane growers' co-operative societies as he may consider necessary to watch or check weighments, weigh-bridges and weights, and also to examine the parchas in which the weights and prices of the cane are recorded. Rule 29 of the Rules, 1954 referred to above reads as under:- “29. The Cane-Commissioner may authorise any person including such employees and representatives of Cane-growers' Co-operative Societies as he may consider necessary to watch or check weighments, weigh-bridges and weights, as also to examine the parchas in which the weights and prices of the cane are recorded.” 12. Rule 29 of the Rules, 1954 referred to above reads as under:- “29. The Cane-Commissioner may authorise any person including such employees and representatives of Cane-growers' Co-operative Societies as he may consider necessary to watch or check weighments, weigh-bridges and weights, as also to examine the parchas in which the weights and prices of the cane are recorded.” 12. The provision for grant of authorisation under Rule 29 to watch or check weighments is thus in addition to the elaborate administrative machinery provided for in terms of Section 11 of the Act, 1953 and the Rules 19 and 20 of the Rules, 1954 in terms of which the Cane Commissioner and certain other specified officers are to be ex officio Inspectors empowered with the power of inspection, which inter alia, includes the power to examine the weighments also. 13. It is therefore seen that the power to be exercised by the Cane Commissioner under Rule 29 to grant authorisation to watch or check weighments, is discretionary and is to be exercised whenever the Cane Commissioner may consider it necessary to do so. Conferment of discretionary powers in the hands of administrative authorities is not only well recognised but is also considered essential for effective administration. 14. The provisions under Rule 29 of the Rules, 1954 do not create any obligation on the Cane Commissioner to necessarily authorise any particular person to watch or check the weighments, weigh-bridges and weights as also to examine the parchas in which the weights and prices of the cane are recorded and no individual can claim any legally enforceable right with regard to the same. 15. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any right of the petitioner to be allowed to watch or check weighments by virtue of his holding the office of the Chairman of the Cane Development Council, Daraula, Meerut. 16. In view of the above, no legal right of the petitioner has been infringed even if authorisation granted earlier by the Cane Commissioner has been withdrawn. 17. It has lastly been submitted that a fresh enquiry ought to be conducted in the matter after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner. 18. The material on record, in particular, the communication dated 15.10.2019 (Annexure-15) of the writ petition indicates that the petitioner was given an opportunity during the course of the enquiry. 17. It has lastly been submitted that a fresh enquiry ought to be conducted in the matter after giving notice and opportunity to the petitioner. 18. The material on record, in particular, the communication dated 15.10.2019 (Annexure-15) of the writ petition indicates that the petitioner was given an opportunity during the course of the enquiry. However, if the petitioner still has some grievance, it would be open to him to approach the authority concerned. 19. This Court is of the view that since no legal rights of the petitioner have been infringed there is no ground for interference in the matter. 20. The writ petition thus fails and is dismissed subject to the observations made above.