1986 PLP 834 (CLC)

Sh. Ziaullah for Respondent No.

3. Hassan Ahmed Khan Kanwar for Respondents Nos. 4 to

8. Date of hearing; 27th October, 1985. By virtue of notification, dated 24‑7‑1984 (Annexure 'B') the earlier notification, dated 20‑11‑1982 (Annexure'A') issued under section 10 (1) and 13 (1) of the Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950, was, amended and 11 Chaks excluded from the Schedule given in the latter notification. These Chaks alongwith Chak No.39lJ.B, Tehsii Faisalabad, were included in the Schedule given in the Cane Commissioner's Office Order No.C.C. (CANE)Z (1)/82, dated 20‑11‑1982. The validity of the notification Annexure 'A' has been called in question through this writ petition. As the notification in question was operative for the crushing seasons 1982‑83, 1983‑84 and 1984‑85 and this time limit has expired now, the respondents have put in the instant C.M. application for disposal of the writ petition on the ground that it has become infructuous.

2. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard and the available record perused. The C.M. application is primarily opposed on the plea that, vide Cane Commissioner's Order No.C.C. (CANE) G (9) 78‑III, dated 14‑9‑1985, the implementation of the notification under challenge has been continued even after the expiry of the crushing seasons to which it originally applied and is being enforced in respect of crushing‑seasons, 1985‑86 to 1987‑88 as well. It is, therefore, contended that since practically ~ the notification is in force the writ petition needs to be decided on merits.

3. I am unable to agree with the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. There is no quarrel with the proposition that legally the notification has expired by efflux of time. It is a different matter that the arrangement envisaged thereby is intended to be continued on the basis of aforesaid order of the Cane Commissioner.

4. When confronted with this position, the learned counsel for the l petitioner made a grievance that the order, dated 14‑9‑1985 which is being used against him, was passed at the back of the petitioner without giving him an opportunity of being heard. A look at the order aforesaid would demonstrate that the zonal demarcation made there under is tentative in character and' appears to be made‑shift arrangement. The contention that this order was made without hearing the petitioner is not refuted by the‑ learned counsel for the respondents. It being so, he has no objection if a fresh order is made by ‑the Cane‑Commissioner, after hearing all the parties.

5. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition is disposed of having become infructuous with the direction that the learned Cane Commissioner, after hearing the parties, shall pass a fresh order under section 10, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks. This order shall be conveyed to him by Mr. Tanvir Ahmad Khan, Add1.A.‑G., who is present in this Court in connection with an other case. No order as to costs. The parties shall appear before the Cane Commissioner, on 30‑10‑1985. H.B.T. Order accordingly.