Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29804-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 2275 of 2024 Petitioner :- Janardan Pal Respondent :- State of UP and 3 others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Datta Tiwari,Yogesh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Ravindra Singh, Meenakshi Singh, A.C.S.C. Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This petition purportedly in public interest has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the District Cane Officer, Kushi Nagar whereby report has been sent that a purchase centre has been established at village Padrahi @ Pakdi. 2. Submission has been made that the respondents have established the purchase centre at a place different from the previous year, which was not justified and therefore, they may be directed to establish the purchase centre at the place where the same was operating in previous year. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 4 sworn by Senior Cane Development Inspector inter-alia indicating that sugarcane procurement at the Padrahi Purchase Centre has already commenced and farmers are actively supplying their produce and there are no dispute or disruption. 4. Further submission has been made that the petition filed by the petitioner, an individual farmer, cannot be countenanced. The petitioner himself has supplied the sugarcane at the said Centre, which is reflected from Annexure-CA-2. It is prayed that the petition be dismissed. 5. A rejoinder has been filed reiterating the objection pertaining to the location of the purchase centre. 6. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. Though the petition purportedly has been filed in public interest, from the material available on record, except for indicating that the change in the location of the purchase centre is not justified, not a word has been indicated regarding the deficiency at the purchase centre established by the respondents. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have categorically denied any unrest qua the location of the centre and the very fact that the petitioner himself has supplied sugarcane and the activity at the purchase centre, has been normal, we do not find any good reason to interfere in the present Public Interest Litigation with the decision taken by the respondents. 8. Consequently, there is no substance in the petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 3.3.2025 nd (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad