Cane Development Council, Laksar v. State of Uttarakhand & Ors.

Ms. Neetu Singh, Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Menka Tripathi, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Manav Sharma, Counsel for respondent no.5. Hon(cid:146)ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

1. Both these petitions have been filed by the Cane Development Councils through respective Chairman. Petitioners before this Court are two different Cane Development Councils. They are aggrieved by an order dated 9.9.2011 by which Cane Commissioner, Uttarakhand has restricted financial powers of the Chairman inasmuch as now the cheques of more than ‘20,000/- singed by the Secretary of the Council shall be valid only if they are counter-signed by the Assistant Cane Commissioner. It has been brought to the knowledge of this Court the Senior Cane Development Inspector is the Ex-officio Secretary of the Council. The Cane Development Councils are the creatures of a statute namely Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the (cid:147)Act(cid:148)). Section 5 of the Act provides for each reserved area in a State a Cane Development Council. Sections 5(3) of the Act regarding establishment of such Councils read as under:- 2 (cid:147)5. The Development Council.-(1) (cid:133) (2)(cid:133) (3) The Council shall consist of the following, namely:- (i) two representatives of the sugar factory concerned, to be nominated by the occupier; (ii) five representatives of the Cane-growers(cid:146) Co operative Societies functioning in the reserved area, to be elected by the members of the Committees of Management of such societies from amongst the members of such societies:(cid:148)

2. After the aforesaid Act came into force, Cane Development Council was constituted for a reserved area. According to Section 5(4) of the Act the term of the Cane Development Council shall be three years and upon its expiry the Council shall be reconstituted in accordance with the provisions of section 5(3) of the Act. It is an admitted case before this Court that the term of the present two Councils constituted in the year 1988, came to an end in the year 1991. The Cane Development Councils, however, continued to function even after the said date. Petitioners have placed before this Court certain order (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) of Hon(cid:146)ble Allahabad High Court where it has been held that even after the term of the Council has come to an end it would not mean that all the powers will be taken up by the Secretary and it has also been held that till a new council is being elected in accordance with law, previously elected council will continue to function. The petitioners have taken to the details of the said order of Hon(cid:146)ble Allahabad High Court and have prayed for relief by relying on the said order. 3

3. Objections have been raised by the State Counsel for filing of the present writ petitions inasmuch as both these petitions have not been filed by the Cane Development Councils but by the Chairman. It has also been stated that these Cane Development Councils are virtually not in existence in the State of Uttarakhand inasmuch as the elected representatives to these Cane Development Councils such as five representatives of Cane-growers etc are no more members of the Cane Development Councils and therefore term of the Councils has already come to an end.

4. Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, argues that the order dated 9.9.2011 is totally without jurisdiction as there is no provision under the Act to curtail the power of the Chairman. The petitioners have also relied upon Rule 14 of Rules known as the Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as Rules) which have been framed under Section 23 of the Act. Rule 14 of the Rules, which has been relied upon by the petitioners reads as under:- if any, (cid:147)14. The funds of the Council shall be kept in a Scheduled Bank or a Co-operative Bank approved by the Cane Commissioner and shall be operated on by the Secretary under the control of the Chairman subject to the the Cane directions, Commissioner. The Secretary shall maintain proper accounts, registers and vouchers of all income and expenditure. The accounts shall be audited annually by a duly appointed auditor, and the Council shall remove all the audit objections to the satisfaction of the Cane Commissioner.(cid:148) issued by

5. Counsel for the petitioners would argue that under the aforesaid Rules there are no powers to the Cane 4 Commissioner to pass the order particularly the order presently impugned which has curtailed the power of the Chairman. This contention of the petitioners is totally misconceived inasmuch as the Rules clearly states that the fund of the Cane Development Council have to be approved by the Cane Commissioner and can be operated by the Secretary and though the operation of the fund of the Secretary has to be under the control of the Chairman it is subject to the direction issued by the Cane Commissioner.

6. Under the peculiar facts and circumstances Cane Development Councils as visualized under the Act do not exist presently and moreover since the term of the present Cane Development Councils has already come to an end in the year 1991, the order dated 9.9.2011 is perfectly justified and does not called for any interference as it involves financial aspect where the money of the exchequer is also involved. Both the writ petitions therefore fail and are hereby dismissed.

7. Interim orders dated 30.9.2011 and 13.10.2011 are vacated. Directions are hereby issued to the State Government to constitute Cane Development Council in the reserved area as early as possible.

8. No order as to costs Kuldeep (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)

8.11.2012