Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


M/S Triveni Engg. And Ind. Ltd. v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 4258 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1611 (1 February 2007)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon. Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.

This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 30th October, 2006 that has been passed by the Cane Commissioner permitting the willing cane growers from the centres reserved to the petitioner to supply sugarcane to Luxmi Sugar Mill which has been arrayed as respondent no.4.

We have heard Sri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3, Sri Yashwant Verma for respondent no.4 and Sri Ravindra Singh for respondent no.5.

The sole submission of Sri S.D. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order had been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. We fail to understand why the order is being challenged after expiry of more than three months when the period for supplying the sugarcane for crushing purpose is almost over. It is a matter of common knowledge that main sugar supply starts in the first week of November and ends by the end of February. No explanation has been furnished by the petitioner for such an inordinate delay in approaching this Court and it is not the case that the order was not in its knowledge. More so, no application to recall the said order has been filed on the ground that the order could not have passed without giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also surprising that the petitioner in similar situation had challenged the order passed by the Cane Commissioner in favour of another sugar mill by filing the Writ Petition No.7439(M/B) of 2006 which was disposed of by the Lucknow Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 24.11.2006.

In view of the above, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

It will, however, be open to the petitioner to file an application before the Cane Commissioner for recalling the same, provided the petitioner satisfies the authority that notice had not been issued to it.

Date: 1.2.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.