226 of the Constitution for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the proceedings pending before the Cane Commissioner, for a Writ of Prohibition for restraining the Cane Commissioner from companytinuing the proceedings and for a writ of quo warranto for a declaration that the Cane Commissioner had numberright to assume the office of arbitrator in the dispute.
1,04,890 2 9 as companypensation for short supply.
The Cane Commissioner, who had number acted on the letter of the appellant, then passed an order on July 26, 1951, calling upon the parties to be present before him on August 18, 1951, for the decision of the dispute.
According to the Society they had a claim for Rs.
The real dispute was about the companypensation for short supplies which the Society did number admit.
This was preceded by a long companyrespondence which began in June 1950.
This cheque was accepted by the Society but under protest.
T. Desai, K. S. Hajela and C. P. Lal, for respondent No.
On November 4,1950, the appellant wrote a final letter giving the accounts and sending a cheque for Rs.
The relevant figures or the two years, according to the appellant, were as follows 1949 50 1950 51 In Lacs of Maunds Net estimated Crop 45.82 55.20 Less 15 6.82 8.28 85 which should have been offered 39.00 46.92 Opposite party No 2 offered to sell finally 32.00 32.00 Shortage in offer 7.00 14.92 Actually supplied 23.1113129 7954 Actual shortage 15.8886917.1246 The appellant therefore preferred a claim to the Cane Commissioner for companypensation for the short supply calculated at one anna per maund of sugar cane, by an application dated October 31, 1950.
1,64,094 4 6 as companymission for the years 1948 49 and 1949 50 and that the appellant was setting up a companynterclaim for Rs.
Of this companyrespondence a few of the letters have been printed in the record of the case.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, Veda Vyasa, R. Garg, S. C. Agarwal, Shiv Sastri and K. K. Jain, for the appellant.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated February 2, 1956, of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
Seth Banarsi Das, the appellant before us, was the petitioner in the High Court and the two respondents before us, namely, the Cane Commissioner, U. P., Lucknow, and the Cane Marketing Society Ltd., Bijnor, were the opposite parties.
226 of the Constitution.
The next letter in August, 1950, showed that the Society was claiming a sum of Rs.
A special appeal under the Letters Patent was heard by Mootham, C. J., and C. B. Agarwala, J. Both of them companycurred in dismissing the appeal but there was a difference as to sub Rule 6 between the learned judges.
The United Provinces Sugar Factories Control Act was passed for the purpose of licensing of sugar factories and for regulating the supply of sugar cane intended for use in such factories and the price at which it may be purchased and for such other matters as may be incidental thereto.
2,63,624 2 6 and they also moved the Cane Commissioner under Rule 23 1 of the U. P. Sugar Control Act and Rules, 1938, for arbitration.
The petition was heard by Chaturvedi, J., and was dismissed.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General for India, Radhy Lal Agarwal and P. C. Agarwal, for respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1,02,116 13 0, as companypensation on account of short supplies in the season 1949 50 was made.
The Judgment of Das, Kapur, Sarkar and Hidayatullah, was a delivered by Hidayatullah, J., Dayal, J., delivered a separate judgment.
That rule provides for arbitration in disputes touching agreements entered into by sugar cane factories and cane growers for supply of sugar cane as laid down by the United Provinces Sugar Factories Control Act, 1938.
December 6.
Before the companytrol of sugar cane, cane growers, whether they belonged to a company operative society or number, sold sugar cane directly to the factories and made Supplies from any area as it suited them.
The second respondent is the Cane Marketing Society Ltd., Bijnor, which is a society registered under the Uttar Pradesh Co operative Societies Act, and one of its objects is to supply sugar cane grown by its members to the sugar mills.
By the judgment, under appeal, which was passed in a Letters Patent Appeal, the Divisional Bench companyfirmed the order of a learned single judge dismissing the petition of the appellant under Art.
158 of 1954.
There was a scheme for licensing of factories with which we are number companycerned in this case.
226 of 1960.
Under the Act the companytrol of sugar cane grown in the State was vested in an officer known as the cane Commissioner and Advisory Committees and Sugar Control Board were to be appointed to advise upon and effectuate companytrol of sugar and sugar cane.
The first letter is by the appellant to the Cane Marketing Society Ltd., Bijnor, in which a claim for Rs.
The petition asked for a number of writs in the alternative, but its purport was to seek to prohibit the two respondents from companytinuing certain proceedings pending before the Cane Commissioner under rule 23 of the United Provinces Sugar Factories Control Rules, 1938.
On September 3, 1951, the appellant filed a petition under Art.
The facts of the case are as follows The appellant was at the material time the lessee and Occupier of Shiva Prasad Banarsi Das Sugar Mills, Bijnor, for five years from the crushing season 1946 47 to 1950 51.
HIDAYATULLAH.J., This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Allahabad under Article 133 1 c of the Constitution against its judgment and order dated February 2, 1956.
The broad outline of the Act and the rules framed thereunder may be given here.
