HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10988 of 2025 Court No. - 3 HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J. HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J. 1. Vakalatnama filed by Shri Anand Shanker Asthana, learned counsel on behalf of Opposite Party No. 4 and vakalatnama filed by Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel on behalf of Opposite Party No. 5 are taken on record. 2. Heard Shri Arjun Singh Kalhans, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Deepshikha, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State- respondents, Shri Anand Shanker Asthana, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 4, Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 5 and Shri Vishwakant Srivastava, learned counsel for the intervenors. 3. The present writ petition has been filed by individual surgarcane growers inter alia, praying therein for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue of a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI quashing the impugned order dated 25.10.2025 passed by the opposite party No. 2 to extend the Sugarcane Purchase Center Paska III/C, allotted to Balrampur Sugar Mill Limited Unit Maijapur, District-serial No. 16 in the order of Gonda at sugarcane ane crushing session 2025-2026 as contained Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS commanding the opposite party Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arjun Singh Kalhans Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Anand Shanker Asthana, Paavan Awasthi, Ratnesh Chandra, Vishwakant Srivastava Vimal Kumar Singh And 6 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Sugar Industry And Sugarcane Development Dept. Lko And Ors. .....Respondent(s) No. 2 to allot the Sugarcane Purchasing Centre Paska- III/C to Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Limited, Unit Kundarki, as before (Crushing Session 2024-25) in the interest of the farmers, including petitioner farmers, according to the proposal of Sahakari Ganna Samiti, Bahbhuva, Karnailganj, District - Gonda related Paska-III/C, Sugarcane Purchase Center." 4. Learned counsel for the respondent relies on the order dated 06.11.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-C No. 10646 of 2025, Ruchi Verma And 164 Others Vs. State of U.P. And 6 others, wherein the Court has categorically held as under:- "(5.) On the other hand, the respondents have opposed the writ petition on various grounds. It has been submitted firstly that the writ petition at the behest of individual crane grower would not be maintainable and this aspect of the matter has already been considered by a decision of Division Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.38324 of 2019 (Akram Khan and another vs. State of U.P. and others) where the Division Bench of this Court had considered the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 and also the Rules made thereunder namely the Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954. This court also considered the previous pronouncements in Writ-C No.2075 of 2014 (Satnam vs. State of U.P. and others) as well as in PIL No.1081 of 2013 (Dharam Veer Singh & ors. vs. State of U.P. & others) wherein it was held that a writ petition at the behest of individual crane grower would not be maintainable. The court also considered the judgment delivered in Writ-C No.2201 of 2019 (Harveer Singh & ors. vs. State of U.P. & others) where again it was reiterated that the writ petition at the behest of individual crane grower seeking to raise grievance with regard to reservation or assignment of cane area is not maintainable and their cause can be espoused only by the crane growers' co-operative society..... ......(7.) In light of the above, the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is binding upon this Court and hence in the present case also where petition has been filed by individual crane grower would not be maintainable. Considering the grievance raised by petitioners, a pointed query has been made to Shri Ratnesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.7 and in response he has informed this Court that to facilitate the crane growers number of crane purchaser centres has been created and one centre has been created in Udaanpur itself and the distance from the purchase centre to the field of the petitioners would not be more than 4 kms. and certainly not 50 kms as asserted by the petitioners. (8.) It has further been informed to this Court that the impugned reservation order has already been assailed by Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Mill in appeal before the State Government in Appeal No. 1097 of 2025-26 and the entire controversy is in any case pending before the appellate WRIC No. 10988 of 2025 2 authority. (9.) In light of the aforesaid, specially that the petition at the behest of crane growers would not be maintainable apart from which we find that the controversy is already engaging the attention of the appellate authority hence, no ground for interference is made out and accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed." 5. From a perusal of the order, it is clear that this writ petition that has been filed is not maintainable. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. November 18, 2025 Lokesh Kumar WRIC No. 10988 of 2025 3 (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf,J.) Digitally signed by :- LOKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench