JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Shri Girish Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 to 5 and Shri Abhijit Jaiswal, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6. 2. It is contended that both the writ petitions namely Writ C No. 4223 of 2022 and Writ C No. 4324 of 2022 pertain to the same issue, as such the facts of Writ C No. 4223 of 2022 are being considered for deciding the matter. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs: "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashi thereby the impugned order dated 13.06.2022 passed by the opposite party no. 3 as contained in Annexure no. 1 to the W.P., in the interest of justice. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing thereby the impugned order dated 08.02.2021 passed by the opposite party no. 4 as contained Annexure no. 2 to the W.P., in the interest of justice. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding thereby the osspsite parties to pay/release immediately the remaining sugarcane price to the respective petitioners which is lying/deposited with the opposite party no.4, along with 15% compound interest from the date on which is becomes due and till it actually paid, in the interest of justice. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding thereby the opposite party no. 2 to take action against the opposite parties nos. 3 to 6 for withholding arduously earned money of the petitioners, in the interest of justice." 4. The case set forth by the petitioners is that in the sugarcane crushing season 2017-2018 the petitioners had supplied their sugarcane to the sugar mill on the papers (parchies) issued by the Co-operative Cane Development Society Limited i.e. the respondent no. 6 (hereinafter referred to as the Society) but despite the entire supply having been made the payment have not been received by the petitioners. 6 (hereinafter referred to as the Society) but despite the entire supply having been made the payment have not been received by the petitioners. Being aggrieved against non payment by the Society, the petitioners were constrained to file Writ Petition No. 6071 (M/B) of 2019 in re: Usha Devi and others vs State of U.P. and others and this Court vide the judgement and order dated 05.07.2019, a copy of which is annexure 3 to the petition, disposed of the petition with a liberty to the petitioners to approach the Sub Divisional Officer for decision on the sugarcane dues and the said officer was directed to determine the issues and decide the same under Rule 46 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules 1954). 5. In pursuance to the order issued by the Writ Court, the petitioners raised their grievance before the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer, who registered their grievance as Case No. 02165 of 2021 in re: Usha Devi and others vs Senior Cane Development Inspector and others. Subsequent thereto through the order impugned dated 11.02.2021, a copy of which is annexure 2 to the petition, the concerned officer rejected the claim of the petitioners for payment. Being aggrieved the petitioners filed an appeal before the Collector which appeal has also been rejected vide the order impugned dated 13.06.2022, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition, and hence the petition. 6. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once the petitioners had supplied their cane to the sugar mill on the basis of the receipts that had been given by the Society and admittedly the Society has received the payment from the sugar mill consequently there cannot be any occasion for the Society to not make the payment to the petitioners and hence the orders impugned by which the claim for payment has been rejected and the appeal has been rejected are legally unsustainable in the eyes of law. 7. Elaborating the same the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a mandate is given under the Rules 1954, more particularly Rule 44, that the payment of the cane shall be made on the basis of the recorded weight of the cane at the purchasing center. 7. Elaborating the same the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that a mandate is given under the Rules 1954, more particularly Rule 44, that the payment of the cane shall be made on the basis of the recorded weight of the cane at the purchasing center. It is also contended that the Rules 1954 also categorically provide for a timely payment to the farmers failing which the entire payment is to be made along with interest at specified rate and hence the respondent no. 6 is liable to make the entire payment alongwith interest. 8. On the other hand, Shri Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 6 argues that though the payment to the petitioners is to be made in terms of Rules 1954 yet considering Rule 57 of Rules 1954, the Satta Policy (hereinafter referred to as the Policy) for the year 201718 dated 28.07.2017 has been issued, a copy of which is annexure CA 1 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 6. Placing reliance on Clause 2(vi) ¼>½ of the Policy, Shri Jaiswal argues that every farmer has been assigned a particular quantity which he can supply as per the land holding under cultivation of the farmer per which a marginal farmer having 1 hectare of land can supply 800 quintal and in case of excess production upto 1300 quintal, in the case of small farmer having two hectares of land, 1600 quintal and 2600 quintal as per the aforesaid formula and for general farmer having land upto 5 hectares, 4000 quintal and 6500 quintal as per the aforesaid formula can be supplied. It has also been provided that the maximum supply would be the area under cultivation of sugar cane x 800 quintals and in case of excess production 6500 quintal whichever is less. 9. Shri Jaiswal argues that the payment to the petitioners were not made as despite the receipts having been issued by the Society, as per the supplies that had been made by the petitioners, upon verification of the said documents, it was found that the supplies had been made against fabricated/manipulated/forged documents and consequently the payment was not made. However, in all cases where the supply was found to be genuine the payments have already been made. However, in all cases where the supply was found to be genuine the payments have already been made. It is only when the petitioners raised their grievance initially before this Court and thereafter before the competent authority under the provisions of Section 47 of the Rules 1954 that the Society raised its objections and indicated excess supply having been made by the petitioners in violation of Clause 2(iv) ¼>½ of the Satta Policy and as such, the authority has correctly rejected their claim being against the Policy. 10. It is further argued that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the competent authority while passing the impugned order dated 11.02.2021 whereby it has been found that as per the revenue records, the maximum amount which could be supplied by a farmer has been calculated and it has duly been recorded that due payment has been made. Whatever excess amount was found to either have been paid to the petitioners has been directed to be recovered by the authority concerned and whatever amount has not been found due payable to the petitioners but supplies had been made, has been deposited before the Sub-Divisional Officer in accordance with Rules 1954. It is also argued that upon an appeal being filed by the petitioners before the Collector, the grounds taken by them have not been found feasible and tenable keeping in view the excess supply being made by them vis a vis the Satta policy and as such the appeal filed by the petitioners has also been dismissed. It is also argued that there is no illegality and infirmity in the orders impugned. 11. It is also argued that there is no illegality and infirmity in the orders impugned. 11. As regards the mandate in Rule 44 of the Rules 1954 for making payment to the cane growers, the argument of Shri Jaiswal is that it is only where the supply is made in accordance with the Policy which has been framed by the competent authority under Rule 57 of the Rules 1954, in this case the Satta policy of the year 2017-18, that the payment, as legally due to the cane grower, can be made and not otherwise in as much as it cannot be a case there where excess supply has been made then mandatorily the payment is to be made to the cane growers over and above the provisions of the satta policy, more particularly when the provisions of the policy have not been challenged by the petitioners. 12. Another argument of Shri Jaiswal is that a finding of fact has been recorded by both the authorities namely the Sub-Divisional Officer while dismissing the case of the petitioners vide order dated 11.02.2021 as well as by the Collector while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners through the order dated 13.06.2022 and no dispute to the said findings having been raised by the petitioners in the instant petition about the said finding of fact being erroneous or being contrary to records as such, this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not interfere with the aforesaid findings of fact. 13. Learned Standing Counsel has also adopted the arguments as raised by Shri Jaiswal. 14. Responding to the same Shri Girish Chandra Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that even if the alleged excess supply has been made by them the same cannot and will not entitle the respondent no. 6 to withhold the payment of the petitioners, more particularly when there is no provisions in the Satta policy for withholding the payment and also taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of Rule 44 of the Rules 1954 for making the payment. 15. 6 to withhold the payment of the petitioners, more particularly when there is no provisions in the Satta policy for withholding the payment and also taking into consideration the mandatory provisions of Rule 44 of the Rules 1954 for making the payment. 15. As regards the argument of Shri Jaiswal that the supplies were made by the petitioners on the basis of manipulated/forged/fabricated documents, it is argued that in the order impugned, there is no finding given by the authority concerned of any supply having been made on the basis of forged, fabricated or manipulated documents and as such the same cannot be allowed to be raised by the respondent no. 6 before this Court for the first time. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 17. From the arguments as raised by learned counsel for the contesting parties and perusal of records it emerges that the petitioners claiming themselves to be farmers who have supplied sugarcane to sugar mills on papers/parchies issued by the respondent no. 6 and the entire payment as due to them for the supply made by them not having been made by the Society approached this Court by filing a writ petition for payment of their dues which was disposed of by this Court vide judgement and order dated 05.07.2019 with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Sub Divisional Officer for payment of dues in accordance with Rule 46 of the Rules 1954. 18. Upon the petitioners approaching the competent authority under Rule 46 of the Rules 1954 their claim was registered and the matter proceeded. The competent authority vide the impugned order dated 11.02.2021, upon considering the objections as raised on behalf of the respondents that the supply of sugarcane made by the petitioners was not in consonance with the land which was recorded in the name of the petitioners rather there was excess supply and consequently the supply of the said sugarcane would be illegal and invalid and after discussing the said issue with respect to each individual petitioners and considering the Satta policy for the year 2017-18, was of the view that there has been flagrant violation of the said policy when the petitioners made the supply beyond the land recorded in their names and consequently dismissed the claim. 19. 19. The petitioners, being aggrieved, filed an appeal before the Collector which has also been dismissed vide the order dated 13.06.2022. 20. Raising a challenge to both the orders impugned, the instant petition has been filed. 21. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that Rule 44 of Rules 1954 mandates payment of price of the cane to be made on the basis of the recorded weight of the cane at the purchasing center and thus there is no discretion vested with the respondent no. 6 Society to withhold the payments of the dues of the petitioners for supply of sugarcane which has been made by them. The supply of sugarcane on the basis of parchies is said to be not disputed by the respondent no. 6 Society and the Society has also received payment from the mill and consequently, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there cannot be any occasion for the respondent no. 6 to not make payment to the petitioners. 22. The issue as to whether as Rule 44 of the Rules 1954 mandates for making payment of price of cane on the basis of recorded weight of the cane irrespective of the Satta policy which has been issued by the respondents is to be considered by the Court. 23. In this regard it would be apt to consider Rule 57 of the Rules 1954 which reads as under: “57. All arrangements in connection with the sowing, sale and supply of cane by Cane-growers' Co-operative Societies shall be in accordance with such general or special instructions as may be issued by the Cane- Commissioner from time to time.” 24. From a perusal of the Rule 57 of the Rules 1954 it emerges that all arrangements in connection with the sowing, sale and supply of cane by the cane growers cooperative societies shall be in accordance with the General or Special instructions as may be issued by the Cane Commissioner from time to time. 25. In pursuance to the powers vested in the Cane Commissioner under Rule 57 of the Rules 1954, the Satta policy for the year 2017-18 has been issued by the official respondents. 25. In pursuance to the powers vested in the Cane Commissioner under Rule 57 of the Rules 1954, the Satta policy for the year 2017-18 has been issued by the official respondents. A perusal of the said policy would indicate that the said policy has been issued for the purpose of supply of sugarcane to the mills indicating their quotas and also stipulates in Clause 2(vi) ¼>½ the limit to which sugarcane can be supplied by a cane grower. 26. For the sake of convenience Clause 2(vi) ¼>½ of the Policy is reproduced below: “2(vi) ¼>½ fdlh Hkh d`"kd ds dqy lV~Vk dh lhek mldh Hkw&tksr ds vuqlkj oxhZdj.k dj mlds lEeq[k vafdr ek=k rd fuEuor~ fu/kkZfjr gksxh%& lhekURk d`"kd& 1 gsDVs;j ¼vf/kdre 800 dqUVy vFkok mit cढksRrjh dh n'kk esa vf/kdrk 1300 dqa-¼rd½ y?kq d`"kd& 2 gsDVs;j ¼vf/kdre 1600 dqUVy vFkok mit cढksRrjh dh n'kk esa vf/kdrk 2600 dqa-¼rd½ lkekU; d`"kd & 5 gsDVs;j ¼vf/kdre 4000 dqUVy vFkok mit c ढksRrjh dh n'kk esa vf/kdrk 6500 dqa-¼rd½ fdlh d`"kd dk vf/kdre lV~Vk fu/kkZj.k] xUuk {ks=Qy ¼gsDVs;j½ X 800 dqa vFkok mit cढksRrjh dh n'kk esa 6500 dqa-esa ls tks Hkh de gks] fd;k tk;sxkA^^ 27. From a perusal of Clause 2(vi) ¼>½ of the policy it emerges that a limit has been prescribed for the supply of cane with respect to marginal farmers, small farmers and general farmers which is as below: Sl No Type of Farmer Land Holding Quantity of Cane (maximum quantity/in case of excess production) 1 Marginal Farmer 1 Hectare 800 quintal / 1300 quintal 2 Small Farmer 2 Hectare 1600 quintal / 2600 quintal 3 General Farmer 5 Hectare 4000 quintal / 6500 quintal 28. From a perusal of the aforesaid table it emerges that the said policy for the year 2017-18 has indicated the maximum produce that a marginal, small and general farmer could submit for purchase. 29. The Sub Divisional Officer in the order impugned, upon objections being raised by the respondent no. From a perusal of the aforesaid table it emerges that the said policy for the year 2017-18 has indicated the maximum produce that a marginal, small and general farmer could submit for purchase. 29. The Sub Divisional Officer in the order impugned, upon objections being raised by the respondent no. 6 Society has categorically recorded the individual land holding of each petitioner and has also indicated that as per the said policy, the maximum amount of cane that could be submitted for being purchased and after considering that the petitioners had submitted more cane then their entitlement as per the satta policy, has not found it legally permissible to direct for payment to the petitioners over and above what the Satta policy has provided for being purchased from such farmers. 30. As an example, so far as the petitioner no. 1 Usha Devi is concerned, it has been indicated that she was having a land holding of 0.345 hectares but had submitted cane against an area of 3.700 hectares and has thus recorded that the cane submitted for purchase by the petitioner no. 1 Usha Devi is in excess of 3.346 hectares and has thus not found the payment for the excess cane submitted by the petitioner no. 1 to be due and payable. Likewise calculations have been made for each of the petitioners before this Court. 31. Incidentally, the said findings as given by the competent authority in the order impugned dated 11.02.2021 have also been upheld by the appellate authority / Collector while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners vide the impugned order dated 13.06.2022. Thus it is a finding of fact which has been recorded by the competent authority and upheld by the appellate authority. In the petition filed by the petitioners, there is no averment in the entire petition of the said finding of the land holdings of the petitioner having been recorded erroneously and thus once there is no challenge to the said finding of fact recorded by the competent authority, as upheld by the appellate authority, as such it would not be possible for the Court to interfere with the orders impugned while exercising jurisdiction Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 32. 32. Even otherwise, the Satta policy, so far as it pertains to fixing a limit for each farmer as specified in Clause 2(vi) ¼>½ has not been challenged by the petitioners while filing the instant petition and thus once such limit continues to exist in the Satta policy as such this Court does not find any infirmity or illegality in the respondents not giving more payment in excess of the supply that could be validly made by the petitioners as per the Satta policy and what was due to the petitioners in terms of the aforesaid policy. 33. As regards the argument that Rule 44 of the Rules 1954 does not contain any condition for making of payment of the price of cane rather it simply indicates that the payment of price of cane has to be made on the basis of recorded weight of the cane at the purchasing center suffice it to say that when Rule 57 of the Rules 1954 has given a power to the Cane Commissioner for framing of the policy with regard to sale and supply of cane by the Society, as such the Rule 44 would have to be read in consonance with Rule 57 and the policy framed in this regard namely the Satta Policy 2017-18 for the sale and supply of cane and consequently once the supply of the cane by the petitioners has been found to be not in accordance with the Satta policy 2017-18, consequently the payment cannot be made contrary to the policy or rather would have to be made only in accordance with the Satta policy 2017-18. 34. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, no case for interference is made out with the orders impugned. The writ petition is dismissed.