1 cp314.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 314 OF 2016
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 6825 OF 2015
1] Bandu Annasaheb Pandarkar,
age 36 years, occ. Agriculture,
2] Mayur Dinkar Pandarkar,
age 25 years, occ. Agriculture,
Both r/o Pimpalgaon Pisa,
Taluka Shrigonda,
District Ahmednagar ...Petitioners
[Orig.Petitioners 2 & 3]
VERSUS
1] Shri Laxman Bhausaheg Gadhe,
The Executive Director,
Kukadi Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Ltd. Pimpalgaon Pisa,
Taluka Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar,
2] Shri Rahul Kundlik Jagtap,
age 28 years, occ. Agriculture,
The Chairman,
Kukadi Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Ltd. Pimpalgaon Pisa,
Taluka Shrigonda, Dist. Ahmednagar,
3] Regional Deputy Director (Sugar),
Ahmednagar Sangita R. Dongre ...Respondents
[Orig. Respondents 3 & 4]
.....
Shri A.K.Gawali, advocate for the petitioners
Shri N.V.Gaware, Adv. for respondent nos. 1 and 2
.....
::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:12:31 :::
2 cp314.16
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA
AND
K.L.WADANE, JJ.
DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 3.3.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT : 31.3.2017 JUDGMENT : (Per K.L.Wadane, J.) The present petition is filed by the petitioners seeking initiation of the contempt action against respondents. The original petitioner one Mr. Dinkar Pandarkar along with the present petitioners had filed Writ Petition No. 6825 of 2015 seeking directions against the respondents to harvest the sugarcane registered by the present petitioners with Kukadi Sahkari Sugar Karkhana for crushing season 2015-16, which the said Karkhana has refused to harvest.
2. The aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed of in view of the statement made by Dinkar ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:12:31 ::: 3 cp314.16 Pandarkar and respondent no.1. Based on the erroneous statement made by the petitioner and the respondent, this Court disposed of Writ Petition No. 6825 of 2015 by judgment and order, dated 13.1.2016. In view of disposal of the abovesaid Writ Petition, the respondents have refused to harvest the sugarcane of the petitioners. The present petitioners have filed Review Application No. 5237 of 2016.
3. After hearing both the sides, this Court has disposed of the Review Petition by directing the Karkhana to harvest the sugarcane of the present petitioners by abiding the order, dated 17.11.2015 passed by respondent no.3. The petitioners then requested the Karkhana to harvest their sugarcane, on which the petitioners were called upon to furnish the sample of sugarcane for measuring the 'recovery' of the sugarcane on 4.3.2016.
4. On 5.3.2016 the Karkhana communicated to ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:12:31 ::: 4 cp314.16 the petitioners that the recovery of the sugarcane of petitioner no.1 was 7.46 and the recovery of sugarcane of petitioner no.2 was 7.81 and the Karkhana was not accepting the sugarcane below the recovery of 10.14. Therefore, the sugarcane of the petitioner was rejected. According to the petitioners, there was willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, the operative order thereof reads as follows : -
" 12. The order dated 13.1.2016 in Writ Petition No. 6825 of 2016 is modified to the following extent.
A. The karkhana i.e. Kukadi Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana shall abide by the order passed by the Regional Assistant Director (Sugar), Ahmednagar dated 17.11.2015 and harvest sugar cane in accordance with law for the current year.
B. The order is limited to harvesting of the sugar cane for the current year only.
C. In normal course, we would have imposed cost upon the review applicants of both review applications, however, considering the fact that, now the crushing season would be coming to an end and considering the fact that, petitioner no.1 had appeared in person, we refrain from doing so.::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:12:31 :::
5 cp314.16 D. Review applications stand disposed of. So also civil application is disposed of. "
5. We have heard the arguments of Mr. A.K.Gawali, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. N.V.Gaware, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.
6. Learned counsel Shri Gawali for the petitioners has argued that in spite of specific order by this Court as well as the communication of respondent no.3 dated 17.11.2015, the respondents have committed willful default and their act was intentional, and therefore, they are liable to be punished for the contempt of court.
7. As against this, Shri Gaware, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that since the quality of the sugarcane grown by the petitioners was not up to the mark and its recovery was below 9.5 and as per the bye-laws of the sugar factory, factory was not accepting the ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:12:31 ::: 6 cp314.16 sugarcane of which recovery was less than 9.5, therefore, there was no question of disobedience of the order passed by this Court or the directions issued by respondent no.3.
8. We have perused the record. On perusal of the same, it appears that on 4.3.2016 the petitioners were directed by the Karkhana to bring their sugarcane for its testing for the purpose of determination of recovery. Accordingly, they brought their sample. It was analysed and found that the recovery of sugarcane of the petitioners was less. Therefore, the respondents have refused to accept the sugarcane of the petitioners for its crushing. From the communication, dated 5.3.2016 by respondent no.1 addressed to the petitioners it appears that after examination of the sample of sugarcane of the petitioners, they have refused to accept the report of examination of the recovery of the sugarcane. Therefore, respondent no.1 sent such communication to the petitioners by post. Further it appears from ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:12:31 ::: 7 cp314.16 the record that the petitioners have tested their sugarcane for the purpose of determination of recovery from Saikrupa Sugar Factory Limited, Deo Daithan, Taluka Shrigonda on 4.3.2016 and the recovery of the sugarcane of petitioner no.1 was 11.20 and recovery of the sugarcane of petitioner no.2 was 11.70. From the record, it appears that testing of sugarcane in Saikrupa Sugar Factory was behind the back of the respondents. No representative of the Karkhana was present at the time of test, as it is the say of the respondents that the father of the petitioners namely Dinkar is a political rival of respondent no.2 and to settle their political score they have filed a false petition.
9. While disposing of the Review Petition, this court has directed the Karkhana to abide the order passed by respondent no.3, dated 17.11.2015 and harvest the sugarcane in accordance with law for the current year. Respondent no.3 by its communication dated 17.11.2015 directed the ::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:12:31 ::: 8 cp314.16 respondents to harvest the sugarcane of the petitioners and if there is any suspicion regarding the age of sugarcane and with regard to the maturity or recovery of the sugarcane, the same be ascertained and verified and accordingly, steps be taken for harvesting of the sugarcane. This Court as well as respondent no.3 never directed the Karkhana to harvest sugarcane of the petitioners of low quality without ascertaining the percentage of recovery. Since according to the recovery of the sample of sugarcane of the petitioners was less, therefore, the Karkhana has refused to accept the sugarcane. It appears to be disputed question of fact. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that there was a willful or deliberate disobedience of the order passed by this Court or the directions given by respondent no.3.
::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:12:31 :::
9 cp314.16
10. Hence, Contempt Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
(K.L.WADANE) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA)
JUDGE JUDGE
dbm/cp314.16
::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 01:12:31 :::