Dismissal of Writ Petition: Lack of Jurisdiction, Validity of Commissioner's Order, Contract Enforcement

The High Court dismissed the writ petition due to lack of jurisdiction as the cause of action did not arise within Uttar Pradesh. The Cane Commissioner's order modifying village reservations was deemed valid under delegated powers. The modification did not impact the enforceability of the petitioner's contracts with cooperative societies. The court held that the Joint Sugarcane Board's decision was not legally binding, thus not affecting the case outcome. The petitioner was directed to pay costs to specific respondents, with other parties bearing their own costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition.
2. Validity of the Cane Commissioner's order modifying the reservation of villages.
3. Impact of the impugned order on the petitioner's contracts.
4. Relevance of the Joint Sugarcane Board's decision.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain the writ petition:
The primary issue addressed is whether the Allahabad High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner. The court noted that under Clause (1-A) of Article 226 of the Constitution, a High Court can issue writs to any government, authority, or person within its territorial jurisdiction if the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises within those territories. The petitioner argued that the cause of action arose in Uttar Pradesh because their factory is located there, and they received the communication of the Cane Commissioner's order at their factory. However, the court found that the impugned order was passed in Bihar, and both the person making the order and the subject matter (the 208 villages) were situated outside Uttar Pradesh. The court concluded that no part of the cause of action arose within Uttar Pradesh, thus dismissing the petition on the preliminary ground of lack of jurisdiction.

2. Validity of the Cane Commissioner's order modifying the reservation of villages:
The petitioner challenged the Cane Commissioner's order dated 14th November 1967, which modified an earlier order and reduced the number of reserved villages from 208 to 109 for the petitioner's factory. The court examined the provisions of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, particularly Clause 6(1)(a), which allows the reservation of areas for factories. The court noted that the Cane Commissioner's order was issued in exercise of delegated powers from the Central Government. The court did not find any legal infirmity in the Cane Commissioner's order, as it was within the scope of the delegated authority.

3. Impact of the impugned order on the petitioner's contracts:
The petitioner argued that the modification of the reservation order frustrated their contracts with cooperative societies for the supply of sugarcane. The court examined Clause 6 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, which outlines the powers to regulate the distribution and movement of sugarcane. The court concluded that a reservation order under Clause 6(1)(a) does not create an obligation for sugarcane growers to supply sugarcane to a factory. Such an obligation arises only under Clause 6(1)(c) or (d), which were not invoked in this case. Therefore, the modification of the reservation order did not affect the enforceability of the petitioner's contracts.

4. Relevance of the Joint Sugarcane Board's decision:
The petitioner contended that the impugned order violated a decision of the Joint Sugarcane Board, which allegedly reserved 208 villages for the petitioner factory. The court found that the Joint Sugarcane Board was not a statutory body recognized by law. The Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, and other relevant laws only recognized the State Governments and Cane Commissioners as the authorities to make such orders. The court held that any informal decision of the Joint Sugarcane Board did not have the force of law and could not be enforced in a court of law. Consequently, no cause of action arose from the alleged infringement of the Joint Sugarcane Board's decision.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition on the preliminary ground of lack of jurisdiction, as no part of the cause of action arose within the territories of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner was ordered to pay costs to respondents nos. 1, 2, and 9, while other parties were to bear their own costs.

---