Six Villages, Two Mills: Jurisdiction, Evidence and the 140 Farmers
Kishanpur and five adjoining villages lie in the reserved area of a 40-year-old cooperative mill. A private mill commissioned 25 km away was allotted a reserved area on the other side of the river, but from October its tractors have been collecting cane from Kishanpur at a purchase centre that the cooperative says lies outside the private mill's reserved area. The private centre is 3 km from the village against 11 km to the cooperative's centre, pays ₹385 against ₹370 with payment in 10 days, and offers free transport. One hundred and forty farmers have signed a written request asking the cooperative's cane society to release them from their supply slips. The society secretary wants the supervisor to file a police complaint against the private mill's agent and to suspend the supply slips of the 140 farmers to "teach them a lesson". The cooperative mill's own crushing is running at 82% of capacity, and its arrears to the same villages are two seasons old.
1. Who is competent to decide whether the private mill's purchase centre is lawful, and what may the supervisor lawfully do - and not do - on the spot?
Read the worked answer
Competence. Reservation of cane areas for mills and the licensing of purchase centres is governed by the UP Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953. The competent authority is the Cane Commissioner, acting with the state government; a mill may buy cane within its reserved area, and outside it only for unassigned areas and with the competent authority's permission. Neither the cooperative society nor the supervisor can declare a centre illegal.
What the supervisor may do. Record facts in writing: the exact location and distance of the private centre, its licence display if any, weighment slips given to farmers, tractor numbers, timings, the price paid and the payment date promised, and the names of farmers dealt with. Take photographs of the centre board and obtain signed statements from four or five farmers. Forward the report to the District Cane Officer, who sends it up to the Cane Commissioner's office.
What he must not do. He cannot seize vehicles, stop the private mill's tractors, sign or threaten a police complaint, or cancel members' supply slips. Those acts exceed his authority and convert an administrative question into a law-and-order dispute in which the farmers, not the mill, become the accused.
2. Evaluate the secretary's two proposals - a police complaint against the agent and suspension of the supply slips of 140 farmers.
Read the worked answer
Police complaint against the agent. Premature and misconceived. No offence has been recorded: the allegation is that a purchase centre lies outside a reserved area, which is a licensing question for the Cane Commissioner, not a police matter. Filing a criminal complaint before the administrative finding would fail and would damage the cooperative's credibility when the real case is finally heard.
Suspending 140 supply slips. Wrong in principle and self-defeating in practice. Supply slips are the mechanism for supplying cane; they are not a disciplinary instrument, and the 140 signatories are member shareholders, not tenants of the society. Suspending them would (a) make the society look vindictive, (b) hand the private mill 140 willing suppliers plus a public grievance it did not have to create, and (c) deepen the cooperative's own supply shortfall - the mill is already at 82% of capacity.
The stronger position. The society's best evidence is not a punishment list but a comparison the village already knows: 11 km versus 3 km, ₹370 with old arrears versus ₹385 with 10-day payment. The secretary's energy should go into closing that gap and into the written report that gets a legal ruling - not into penalising the members he needs.
3. What should the supervisor's report contain, and what can the cooperative lawfully do to hold its cane in Kishanpur?
Read the worked answer
The report should contain, in a fixed format:
- Location map and measured distance of both centres from Kishanpur. 2. The private centre's licence particulars if displayed, and a statement that they were or were not available. 3. Copies or descriptions of weighment slips and payment commitments given to farmers. 4. Vehicle numbers and dates of collection. 5. Signed statements of at least five farmers, including the price and payment period promised. 6. A note of the cooperative's own service gaps in the same villages, recorded honestly, since these will be raised by the other side. 7. The 140-name request, as an attachment, not as an accusation.
What the cooperative may lawfully do:
- Ask the District Cane Officer to seek the Cane Commissioner's ruling, and be prepared to abide by it either way.
- Fix its own service: printed weighment slips, payment within 10 days through a bank tie-up financed against sugar stock, cluster transport from Kishanpur, and a written arrears schedule.
- Meet the 140 farmers openly and explain both the legal position and the payment plan; cancelling anyone's membership or slip is not on the table.
If the centre is regularised, the farmers' choice is lawful and the cooperative must compete on service. If it is not, the Cane Commissioner's order stops it - not the society's strong-arm. The supervisor's value lies in a clean, dated record that lets that order be passed quickly.