Law:

Section:

The petitioner has called in question vires of the order, dated 31-8-1986 passed by the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, in appeal, whereby the order of the Cane Commissioner, Punjab, dated 16-3-1986 was upheld disallowing inclusion of 28 Chaks from free Zone to the reserved area of the petitioner.   Briefly stated the facts leading to the present petition are that Sugarcane Control Board in its meeting held on 15-1-1986, at the request of the petitioner recommended that 28 Chaks from free Zone, may be included in the reserved area of the petitioner. The minutes of the meeting of the Sugarcane Control Board are appended as Annex.A. However, in the notification, dated 16-3-1986, issued by the Cane Commissioner, Punjab, respondent No.1, these Chaks were not included in the reserved area of the petitioner, consequently, feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Commissioner, Faisalabad Division as contemplated by S.10(2) of the Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950 hereinafter referred to as Act which was dismissed vide the impugned order. Hence the present petition.   The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised bifold contentions. Firstly, respondent No. l was statutorily obliged to include these Chaks in the reserved area of the petitioner in view of the decision of the Sugarcane Control Board, dated 15 - 1-1986 (Annex.A) for the reason that although the expression used in sections 10 and 14 of the Act is 'may' but it is to be read as 'shall' thus respondent No.1 was bound to implement the recommendations of the Sugarcane Control Board, which were mandatory in nature; and as a necessary corollary thereof, the orders of the Cane Commissioner, Punjab, dated 16-3-1986 and the order passed by the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division in appeal, dated 31-8-1986 are without lawful authority. Secondly, on facts since the area of the petitioner has been reduced in terms of acreage, therefore, 28 Chaks should have been included in the reserved area of the petitioner.   Report was called for from respondent No.1, and the same has been perused.   I have examined the provisions of Section 10 and Section 14 of…