IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3550 of 2009 M/S SASAMUSA SUGAR WORKS LTD. . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 4. 7.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The writ petition was originally filed for quashing the order dated 29.9.2008 issued by the Cane Commissioner Bihar under Section 31(1) of the Bihar Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), by which the sugar cane area for the petitioning factory and respondent no. 3 had been wrongly fixed in a non traditional area contrary to the statutory provisions. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that this settlement was for a period of three years which effectively shall run its course by February, 2011 as the factory will close when the crushing season shall end. He therefore does not seek any interim relief with regard to the present notification. Referring to the minutes and deliberation of a meeting dated 13.2.2009 between representative of Sugar cane factories and the Cane Commissioner at Annexure-7 to the supplementary affidavit, he submits that the authority himself has opined that the reservation of the Sugar 2 Cane for non traditional area was not done in accordance with the provisions of Section 31(1) of the Act. It is next submitted that Section 31(1) of the Act has come up for consideration by this Court also in certain writ applications reported in 2005(3) BBCJ 9. The limited submission is for a direction to the Cane Commissioner to rectify the error committed by him earlier and also noticed in the minutes dated 13.2.2009 and act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act while reserving non traditional areas for Sugar cane supplies. The writ application is disposed with the observation that while making any reservation of Sugar Cane supplies in a non traditional area the statutory authority shall act in accordance with and follow the procedures as prescribed in Section 31(1) of the Act as may have been interpreted by this Court also. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)