Bhimashankar Sugar Mills Ltd ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 4977 Bom

                                           {1}
                                                                     wp 9095.16.odt

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                           
                            BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO.9095 OF 2016




                                                   
     Bhimashankar Sugar Mills Ltd.,
     Vasant Nagar, Pargaon,
     Taluka - Washi, District - Osmanabad
     through its Executive Director




                                                  
     Mr. Nitin Satish Lodha
     age: major, occu: business,
     R/o As above                                                    Petitioner




                                       
              Versus


     1
                             
              State of Maharashtra,
              Through the Commissioner of Sugar,
              Maharashtra State,
                            
              Sahkar Sankul, Shivaji Nagar
              Pune

     2        The Collector, Osmanabad,
              District - Osmanabad
      


     3        Regional Joint Director (Sugar)
              Nanded, District - Nanded
   



     4        Special Auditor, Class - I
              Co-operative Societies (Sugar)
              Osmanabad, District - Osmanabad





     5        Pralhad Ramaji Ingole,
              age: 37 years, occu: agriculture
              District President of Swabhimani
              Shetkari Sanghatana
              R/o Majalgaon, Tq. Ardhapur,





              Dist. Nanded                                         Respondents

Mr.Mukul Kulkarni h/f Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.G. Karlekar, Assistant Govt. Pleader for Respondents No.1 to 4 Mr. R.A. Deshmukh, advocate for respondent No.5 _______________

{2} wp 9095.16.odt

CORAM : R.M. BORDE & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ

(Date : 25th August, 2016.)

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: R.M. Borde, J)

1 Heard respective counsel for the parties.

Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up

for final decision at admission sage.

3 The petitioner is objecting to the order passed by the

Commissioner of Sugar on 11.8.2016, directing payment of

Rs.227.72 lakhs towards Fair & Remunerative Price (FRP) payable

by the petitioner processing society. According to the petitioners,

on earlier occasion, the petitioner had approached this Court by

presenting Writ Petition No.11701/2015, seeking directions

against the bank and seeking some time to pay the amount of Fair

& Remunerative Price (FRP) which remained unpaid during the

year 2014-15. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition,

accepted the proposal of the petitioner to make payment of

Rs.67,58,000/- towards the balance FRP, during 2014-2015 and

granted two months time for complying with the directions in

{3} wp 9095.16.odt

respect of payment of the aforesaid amount.

4 According to the petitioner, the amount as undertaken by

the petitioner before this Court, has been paid to the agriculturists

and there are no dues towards the petitioner society in respect of

payment of FRP to the agriculturists. It is contended that, the

Director of Sugar heard the matter in the month of March, 2016

and thereafter no opportunity of hearing was extended. The

petitioner could not point out the developments those have taken

place after March, 2016 and place on record the relevant material

before the Commissioner of Sugar to demonstrate payment of

amount by the petitioner society towards FRP payable to the

agriculturists.

5 It is not a matter of dispute that, the Commissioner of

Sugar extended hearing to the parties in the month of March,

2016 and reserved the matter for passing orders and the orders

were actually declared on 11.8.2016.

6 Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents

contends that, the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material

facts and that the balance amount of FRP payable by the

petitioner society, as pointed out to the High Court in earlier Writ

Petition, is an incorrect figure and much more amount is payable

{4} wp 9095.16.odt

by the petitioner society.

7 The questions which need factual investigation need not be

gone into, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under article

226 of the Constitution of India. It would be open for the

Commissioner of Sugar to investigate into factual aspects and

pass appropriate order, after extending opportunity of hearing to

all the parties concerned. We therefore, quash and set aside the

order passed by the Commissioner of Sugar on 11.8.2016 and

direct the concerned authority to extend the opportunity of

hearing to all the parties concerned and after investigating into

the factual aspect, pass appropriate order, in accordance with law.

This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and

preferably within a period of eight weeks from today.

8 Rule is made absolute to the extent specified above.

     9        There shall be no order as to costs.





               (K.K. SONAWANE, J)                       (R.M.BORDE, J)




     vbd