IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5194 of 2007 Arvind Tiwari Versus The State Of Bihar ---------------------------------- 3. 17.11.2011. The petitioner submits that he is the vice President of Cane Utpadak Sangh, Bagaha. He submits that the State Legislature has enacted the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 (in short the 1981 Act) to safeguard the benefits of cane growers as well as sugar factories. Section 31 of the 1981 Act states that cane grown in the area would be supplied to the nearest factory and to no other. The petitioner states that his association supplied sugarcane to respondent no.4. Respondent nos. 5 and 6 are functionaries of respondent no.4. Grievance of he petitioner is that the cane price has not yet been paid to the cane growers by respondent no.4. A certificate case was also initiated against the cane factories and its owners. The petitioner states that the District Magistrate also vide his letter dated 16.9.2006, contained in memo no. 792 informing respondent no.1 had emphasized the need to pay the arrears of cane prices to the cane growers of the area. The petitioner submits that name 2 of the occupier is being changed in order to avoid making payment to the cane growers. In my view, the affected cane towers may file a detailed representation before the Cane Commissioner jointly or separately for payment of outstanding dues of the cane supplied. In case, such representations are filed, the same would be disposed of within three months from the date of their receipts. The writ petition stands disposed of. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)