Gangakhed Sugar And Energy Ltd Thr ... vs The State Of Mah And Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 2407 Bom

    sgp                                         1                                     WP415.2012.odt


                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
                               BENCH AT NAGPUR




                                                                                   
                               WRIT PETITION NO. 415 OF 2013




                                                           
    Gangakhed Sugar and Energy Ltd.,
    through its Chief Agricultural Officer,
    Nandkishor S/o. Ratanlal Sharma,
    Age: 62 years, Occu. Service,




                                                          
    Vijay Nagar, Makhani, Kodari Road,
    Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani.                                           ...Petitioner

                       Versus




                                              
    1.        The State of Maharashtra,
              Department of Cooperation, Marketing & Textile Industry,
                                 
              Through its Secretary,
              Mantralaya, Mumbai.
                                
    2.        The Commissioner of Sugar,
              Sahakar Sankul, Shivaji Nagar, Pune.

    3.        The Regional Joint Director Sugar,
              Opp. I.T.I. College, Workshop Road,
      


              Nanded.                                                    ...Respondents
   



                                            ............
                           Mr V. D. Sapkal, Advocate for the petitioner
                           Mr V. H. Dighe, AGP for respondents/State
                                            .............





                                                    CORAM : A. V. NIRGUDE &
                                                            V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 02.05.2016.

PRONOUNCED ON : 06.05.2016.

JUDGMENT: (Per V. L. Achliya, J.) :

. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the

consent of the parties.

sgp 2 WP415.2012.odt

2. In brief, the grievance of the petitioner is that, though the

petitioner acted as per order of allotment dt. 24.06.2011 issued by

Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State, Pune i.e. respondent No. 2 &

executed the work as per said order and submitted bills which were duly

audited and approved by the auditor, still the respondents are not discharging

their obligation to make the payment as per Government Resolution dt.

14.03.2011 and Government Circular dt. 25.05.2011.

3.

The petitioner claims to be Company registered under the

Companies law having office at Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani. The principal

activity of the petitioner-Company is production of sugar from sugarcane and

subsidiary products. The crushing season of sugarcane generally starts from

October and end in the month of March of suceeding year. Generally such

period runs for 5-6 months but it depends upon the rainfall and availability of

water sources etc.

4. In the year 2010-11, as the conditions were favourable for

sugarcane crop & therefore there was bumper sugarcane crop in most of the

areas of the State. Due to this reason, most of the sugar factories could not

complete the crushing of sugarcane within its area of operation till March-

2011. In order to meet such situation, the State Government had taken a

policy decision that sugar factories which will crush the sugarcane beyond 50

km for crushing of excess sugarcane on & after 16 th March, 2011 they will be

sgp 3 WP415.2012.odt

entitled to transport subsidy @ Rs. 3/- per mtric tonne per km beyond the

distance of 50 km. Accordingly the GR dt. 14.03.2011 was issued by

respondents. Pursuant to the GR dt. 14.03.2011, the respondent No. 2 called

the meeting of sugar mills and directed the sugar mills including private sugar

mills to transport the sugarcane as per Resolution dt. 14.03.2011 issued by

respondent No. 1. By Govt. Resolution dt. 06.05.2011, the Government has

resolved that those sugar factories which will crush the excess sugarcane on

and after 1.5.2011 of the area beyond their area of operations they shall be

entitled to transport subsidy @ Rs. 3/- per km beyond their area of operation.

It was further resolved to provide subsidy @ Rs. 65/- per tonne as reduction in

percentage of sugar crushed during the period 1.5.2011 to 15.11.2011. By

Govt. Circular dt. 25.05.2011, issued by respondent No. 1, transport subsidy

also made available to private sugar factories.

5. Pursuant to said decision of the government, the respondent No.

2 issued allotment order dt. 24.06.2011 directing petitioner in exercise of

powers under Maharashtra Sugar Factories (Reservation of Areas &

Regulation of Crushing of Sugarcane & Supply), 1984 to transport and crush

sugarcane in excess from the area of Barshi, Dist. Solapur and Kalamb,

Bhum, Washi & Paranda of Dist. Osmanabad. The order mentions that failure

to act as per order, the petitioner will be liable for action. It is the case of the

petitioner that, pursuant to Govt. Resolution and order issued by respondent

No. 2, the petitioner/sugar factory harvested, transported and crushed the

sgp 4 WP415.2012.odt

excess sugarcane from the area referred in allotment order dt. 24.06.2011 and

thereafter claimed the transport subsidy. As per the guidelines, the claim of

subsidy required to be got audited through respondent No. 3, by Special

Auditor - Class I, Sugar. The respondent No. 3 was to forward such claim to

auditor and who in turn required to make the scrutiny of the claim and then to

issue certificate with endorsement thereon of Regional Director (Sugar) i.e.

respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 then to forward such proposal with

his recommendation/opinion to the respondent No. 2. Accordingly, the

petitioner approached to respondent No. 3 and requested to cause audit of the

claim of the petitioner through special auditor. Thereafter, the entire record of

the petitioner was inspected by special auditor. The Auditor found the claim of

the transport subsidy made by the petitioner was as per Govt. Resolution i.e.

@ Rs. 3/- per metric ton per km and the amount of Rs. 1,56,97,353/- found to

be payable as subsidy to petitioner. Special Auditor prepared a report to this

effect and submitted to respondent No. 3. After receipt of audit report, the

respondent No. 3 forwarded the proposal with his recommendation to

respondent No. 2 to pay the transport subsidy of Rs. 1,56,97,353/- vide letter

dt. 20.09.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner repeatedly approached the

respondents and requested to make the payment. Vide communication dt.

30.03.2012, the respondent No. 1 instructed the respondent No. 2 to make the

payment as per Govt. Resolution. However, the efforts made by petitioner

resulted in vain. In this background, the petitioner has approached by way of

this petition seeking direction against the respondents to act as per the Govt.

sgp 5 WP415.2012.odt

Resolution referred above and make payment of transport subsidy.

6. In response to the petition filed, one Shrikant Sahebrao

Deshmukh, Regional Jt. Director of Sugar, Nanded filed affidavit which was

sworn on 27.01.2016. In the affidavit filed, the facts stated in the petition are

not disputed. The respondents have not disputed about the issuance of various

Govt. Resolutions referred in petition & order of allotment issued by

petitioner to transport the excess sugarcane crop as for crushing. They have

also not disputed that petitioner has executed the work as per order of

allotment and the petitioner's claim was audited and recommended for

payment to respondent No. 2 to respondent no.3. Only stand which has been

taken in the affidavit-in-reply filed is that, after Govt. Resolutions dt.

14.03.2011, 06.05.2011 & Circular dt. 25.05.2011 it was realized that, in

view of certain interim order passed PIL No. 20/2006, subsidy could not have

given to private sugar factories therefore the Government had issued GR dt.

21.10.2011 whereby it was resolved that, private sugar factories would not be

eligible for reduction in sugar contents subsidy. Due to said GR dt.

21.10.2011, the amount of subsidy has not been paid.

7. During the course of hearing of the petition, as it was brought to

the notice of Court that the petitioner has transported the sugarcane as per the

Govt. Resolution in force and with a specific order of the Commissioner of

Sugar and bills were also forwarded after auditor made recommendation to

sgp 6 WP415.2012.odt

pay the amount, still the stand has been taken in the matter which runs

contrary to Govt. Resolutions as well as the orders issued by the

Commissioner of Sugar, the respondent No. 1 was directed to examine the

matter and personally file the affidavit. Pursuant to said direction, Shri. S. S.

Sandhu, Principal Secretary (Cooperation), Cooperation, Marketing and

Textile Department, Government of Maharashtra has filed affidavit sworn on

23.04.2016. So far as the facts pleaded in the petition including the

transportation of sugarcane for crushing by petitioner-society has not been

disputed. So also the issuance of Govt. resolution and making applicable the

transport subsidy to private sugar factory as that of the petitioner has not been

disputed. He has also not disputed that the claim of the petitioner was audited

and submitted with recommendation for payment. The respondent No. 1 has

also not disputed that the petitioner has acted as per Govt. Resolution and

order issued by respondent No. 2 i.e. Commissioner of Sugar. It is

specifically stated in para 8 of the affidavit filed that, in order to meet the

peculiar situation of bumper crop of sugarcane in the year 2010-11 and to

ensure that excess sugarcane be crushed during the crushing season of 2010-

11, to avoid the financial loss to the farmers, the Commissioner of Sugar

referring to Govt. Resolution dt. 14.03.2011, 06.05.2011 and Govt. Circular

dt. 25.05.2011 in exercise of powers under Maharashtra Sugar Factories

(Reservation) of areas and regulation of crushing and sugarcane supply)

(Order 94) and Amendments made therein from time to time issued the

distribution/allotment order dt. 24.06.2011 directing petitioner to transport &

sgp 7 WP415.2012.odt

crush excess sugarcane from talukas Barshi, Kalamb, Paranda, Bhum and

Washi. Later on, it was revealed that there was some order passed in PIL No.

20/2006 passed on 21.01.2010 not to grant subsidy/grant-in-aid to private

sugar factories, still some private sugar factories were included in the

proposal of the Commissioner for payment of subsidy for reduction of sugar

content, the GR dt. 21.10.2011 was issued not to provide grant/subsidy for

reduction in sugar content to private factories as provided by Govt. Resolution

dt. 06.05.2011. In view of this, the amount has not been paid to the

petitioner. He has also referred some order passed in WP No. 1602/2014 on

16.01.2016, rejecting the plea of petitioner in the case seeking extension of

benefits available to cooperative societies to private sugar factories. It appears

that, the GR dt. 21.10.2011 was challenged in the said petition on the ground

of discrimination. We are not concerned with such challenge in the present

petition. It is further stated that, in the peculiar facts of the case of petitioner,

the Government has decided to consider and process the claim of the

petitioner to provide the amount of transportation subsidy as claimed by the

petitioner provided petitioner transfer the same to farmers as intended in

Govt. Circular dt. 25.05.2011. He has further stated that the decision has been

taken with a bona fide belief that the said decision of the Government may not

amount to contempt of this Court and by way of precaution it has been

decided to move application for seeking clarification order as to whether the

transport subsidy/ grant is admissible to sugarcane crushing private factory in

the light of the order dt. 21.01.2010 passed in PIL No. 20/2006. He has

sgp 8 WP415.2012.odt

further stated that the decision taken in the matter by the Government shall be

subject to final decision and clarification to be obtained by filing application

as proposed by the Government as well as legislative sanction for funds by

the Legislator Assembly.

8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and learned AGP appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and also perused the

Govt. Resolutions dt. 14.03.2011, 06.05.2011, 25.05.2011, 21.10.2011, copy

of allotment letter dt. 24.06.2011, report of special auditor dt. 17.08.2011,

copy of letter dt. 20.09.2011 written by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2

and copy of letter dt. 30.03.2012 issued by respondent No. 1 to respondent

No. 2.

9. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the

respondents have not disputed that the petitioner has acted as per the

directions and order of allotment issued by respondent No. 2 and transported

the excess sugarcane and entitled to claim the amount of transport subsidy.

Only contention raised on the part of the respondent is that, pursuant to Govt.

Resolution dt. 21.10.2011 issued, the amount of subsidy has not been paid. It

is submitted that, once the work got executed and excess sugarcane was

transported and crushed by petitioner as per the directives of respondent No.

2, the respondents cannot refuse to make payment of legitimate claim of

petitioner for transport subsidy. He has further submitted that, the order

sgp 9 WP415.2012.odt

passed on 21.01.2010 has no bearing upon the facts of the present case. There

is no reason for respondents to refuse to pay the legitimate dues of petitioner

under the guise of order dt. 21.10.2010, which has no bearing upon the facts

of the case of petitioner. Learned counsel has further argued that the entire

action on the part of respondents is arbitrary and unsustainable in law.

10. On the other hand, the ld. AGP has submitted that due to order

passed in PIL NO. 20/2006, the claim has not been paid. He has further

submitted that, the petitioner is a private sugar factory. The claim on account

of subsidy of transportation of excess sugarcane in fact payable to respective

agriculturists/sugarcane grower. He has further submitted that, the Govt. has

already taken a decision to pay the amount to the petitoner subject to seeking

clarification in the matter.

11. On due appreciation of submissions advanced and perusal of the

affidavits, it is nowhere the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not

entitled to transport subsidy towards the excess sugarcane transported

pursuant to the Govt. Resolution referred above. So also, there is no dispute

as to fact that the petitioner has carried out the work of transportation &

crushing pursuant to specific order of allotment made by respondent No. 2

directing the petitioner to transport and crush the excess sugarcane in view of

the situation exists during the year 2010-11. The Government was required to

take the policy decision in view of the peculiar situation crop up due to

sgp 10 WP415.2012.odt

bumper crop of sugarcane during the year 2010-11 as large quantity of

sugarcane grown by the farmers lying in the field and waiting for crushing. In

order to meet the situation, the Government has decided to grant the transport

subsidy @ Rs. 3/- per tonne. By virtue of the said GR, the Commissioner of

Sugar was empowered to issue the orders of allotment to the sugar factories.

The GR dt. 14.03.2011 was made applicable w.e.f. 16.03.2011 for the

Crushing Season 2010-11. By another GR dt. 06.05.2011, the Government

has taken decision to pay the trnsport subsidy to sugar factories who make the

crushing of excess sugarcane beyond the area of their operation w.e.f.

01.05.2011 and onwards and further agreed to pay subsidy @ Rs. 65/- per

metric tonne towards reduction in sugar content subsidy/grant of sugarcane

crushed during the period 01.05.2011 to 15.05.2011. The decision was taken

looking to the situation so exists in the year 2010-11. The Commissioner of

Sugar was empowered to take the appropriate decision and to issue orders of

allotment by issuing the guidelines as per the directions contained in said GR

dt. 14.03.2011 and 06.05.2011. By circular dt. 25.05.2011, it is clarified that

the GR dt. 14.03.2011 to grant transport subsidy shall be applicable to private

sugar factories and such private factories also entitled for transport

allowance/subsidy. It is also clarified by said circular that the subsidy to be

payable is not payable to the factory but it is payable to the agriculturists

/farmers and while fixing the price of the sugarcane, the amount be paid to

such farmers/agriculturists by including the subsidy amount in price of

sugarcane.

sgp 11 WP415.2012.odt

12. By order dt. 24.06.2011 issued by respondent No. 2 i.e. the

Commissioner of Sugar, State of Maharashtra, a letter of allotment was issued

in favour of petitioner/sugar factory to crush 65,335 metric tonne of sugarcane

from the talukas of Barshi, Kalamb, Paranda, Bhum and Washi. In the order

of allotment it is also mentioned that the approximate distance between places

referred is about 100 Km. The order of allotment also lay down certain

conditions to be complied while executing the work and submission of the

information in the prescribed proforma, which provides for furnishing various

details such as quantity, the place, the name of agriculturist, survey number,

area, tonnage per metric tonne and date of cutting sugarcane. The information

in prescribed forms to be furnished after every 15 days and such information

also to be displayed in the office of concerned Gram Panchayat. It further

provides that, the petitioner shall daily submit report of actual sugarcane

crushed to the office of Regional Jt. Director (Sugar), District Collector and

Commissioner of Sugar, the sugarcane transported with distance. The order

also mentions that, the Regional Jt. Director (Sugar) shall maintain the day-

to-day noting of such excess sugarcane transported.

13. Thus, there is no dispute as to fact that the order of allotment

was issued in favour of the petitioner and petitioner has carried out the work

of transportation & crushing of sugarcane as per allotment order dt.

14.06.2011 issued by Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State i.e.

sgp 12 WP415.2012.odt

respondent No. 2. The circular dt. 25.05.2011 make the position very clear

that, the GR dt. 14.03.2013 also made applicable to private sugar factories. It

is mentioned in the Circular dt. 25.05.2011 that, the transportation subsidy is

in fact payable to the individual agriculturist whose excess sugarcane

transported and crushed by the private sugar factories and while ascertaining

the price of sugarcane to be payable to the agriculturalists and the amount of

subsidy be included in the price of sugarcane to be paid to such farmers. In

nutshell the subsidy which was payable under GR dt. 14.03.2011 was in fact

to be payable by government to individual agriculturists through sugar

factories as that of petitioner. In view of this, there is no question of transport

subsidy as claimed by petitioner made payable to private sugar factories. In

fact, it is the payment of subsidy to individual agriculturalists whose excess

sugarcane was transported and crushed in the factory in the peculiar situation

exists in the year 2010-11 through the respective sugar factories who agree to

transport & crush the excess sugarcane.

14. Mr V. D. Sapkal, the learned counsel for the respondents has

submitted that, the petitioner-sugar factory in fact already paid the subsidy

amount to individual agriculturalists while paying the price of the sugarcane

to each of the agriculturalists by including the said amount in payment of

price of sugarcane transported and crushed of individual agriculturalists.

Therefore, there is no reason for the respondents to withhold the amount. In

this view of matter, the respondents are bound to pay the transport subsidy of

sgp 13 WP415.2012.odt

the excess sugarcane transported and crushed by the petitioner pursuant to

order of allotment issued on 14.06.2011 as a reimbursement of amount

already paid by petitioner towards transport subsidy to individual farmer.

While making such payment, the respondents are entitled to verify, whether

the amount claimed already paid by petitioner to individual agriculturalists

whose excess sugarcane was transported and crushed by petitioner.

15. From the contents of order of allotment dt. 14.06.2011, it is

apparent that the petitioner was directed to submit the information in the

prescribed proforma within a period prescribed i.e. 15 by furnishing

particulars such as the quantity of excess sugarcane transported and crushed

with particulars of the name of the individual agriculturalists, area of land,

survey number, percentage of tonnage per metric tonne, date of cutting of

sugarcane. The information was also to be furnished everyday of actual

crushing made by the petitioner-sugar factory to respondent No. 2 and 3 as

well as the District Collector. Therefore, the statement made that petitioner

has already paid the amount of transport subsidy to individual farmers while

paying price of sugarcane can be once again verified by respondents from

record available with them. As per the auditor's report dt. 17.08.2011, the

auditor has verified such information and found that, 43,652.818 metric tonne

excess sugarcane has been crushed by the petitioner-sugar factory during the

said period. On the basis of verification/scrutiny of record, the auditor already

certified that the amount of Rs. 1,56,97,353.41/- is payable to the petitioner.

sgp 14 WP415.2012.odt

The respondent No. 3 vide letter dt. 20.09.2011 has recommended to

respondent No. 2 to pay Rs. 1,56,97,353.41/- to petitioner towards transport

subsidy after due scrutiny of the proposal supported with documents and

report of the auditor. While making such recommendation by auditor,

respondent No. 3 must have examined this aspect.

16. It is pertinent to note that, though the respondent No. 1 - State

Government has pleaded that in view of GR dt. 21.10.2011, the amount could

not be paid to the petitioner but there is a letter dt. 30.03.2012 (Exh. G to the

petition) written by Jt. Secretary, Department of Cooperation, Marketing &

Textile, Government of Maharashtra addressed to the Commissioner of Sugar,

Maharashtra State i.e. respondent No. 2 directing him to release the amount of

subsidy to the petitioner. The contents of the letter in vernacular language

reads as under:

Þdz-llkdk&[email protected]@25l lgdkj] Ik.ku o oL=ks|ksx foHkkx]

eknke dkek ekxZ] gqrkRek jktxqjw pkSd] ea=ky;] eqacbZ & 400 032-

fnukad% 30 ekpZ] 2012-

izfr]

lk[kj vk;qDr] egkjk"Vª jkT;] lk[kj ladqy] f'kokthuxj] iq.ks & 411005-

fo"k; % lu 2010&11 ;k gaxkekrhy okgrqd vuqnkukps izLrkokckcr-

lnHkZ % vkiys tk- dz- fodkl&2] xk-g-10&[email protected] [email protected]@11] fnukad 5-10-2011 ps i=-

sgp 15 WP415.2012.odt

mijksDr fo"k;kalanHkkZrhy vkiY;k lanHkkZ/khu i=kl vuql#u vki.kkal dGfo.;kr ;srs dh] xGhr gaxke 2010&11 e/;s mRikfnr gks.kk;k vfrfjDr ml xkGi dj.;klkBh ns.;kr ;s.kk;k loyrh varxZr okgrqd vuqnku ns.ks

ckcrpk fu.kZ; 'kklukus fn- 14-3-2011 P;k 'kklu fu.kZ;kUo;s ?ksrysyk vkgs- lnj fu.kZ;kuqlkj dkj[kkU;kauk #[email protected]& izfr Vu izfr fd-eh- ;k njkus 50 fd-

eh- P;k ojhy okgrqdhlkBh okgrqd vuqnku eatqj dj.;kr vkysys gksrs- rn~uarj] fn- 6-5-2011 P;k 'kklu fu.kZ;kUo;s fn-1-5-2011 iklqu dk;Z{ks=kP;k ckgsjhr varjklkBh #- [email protected]& Vu izfr fd-eh- ;k njkus okgrqd vuqnku eatqj dj.;kpk fu.kZ; ?ks.;kr vkysyk vkgs-

2- 'kklukus fn- 14-3-2011 P;k 'kklu fu.kZ;kUo;s okgrqd vuqnku ns.;kpk fu.kZ; ?ksrysyk vkgs- lnu fu.kZ;kuqlkj 50 fd-eh- P;k ojhy varjklkBh okgrqd vuqnku ns; vkgs- rn~uarj fn- 6-5-2011 P;k 'kklu fu.kZ;kUo;s fn- 1- 5-2011 iklqu iq<s dk;Z{ks=kP;k ckgsjhy varjklkBh okgrqd vuqnku eatqj

dj.;kpk fu.kZ; ?ksrysyk vkgs- R;keqGs fn- 14-3-2011 rs fn-30-4-2011 ;k dkyko/khrhy okgrqdhdjhrk fn- 14-3-2011 P;k 'kklu fu.kZ;kuqlkj [kktxh

rlsp lgdkjh lk[kj dkj[kkU;klkBh vaeyctko.kh dj.;kl dkghgh vMp.k fnlwu ;sr ukgh-

3- fnukad 6-5-2011 P;k 'kklu fu.kZ;kuqlkj fn- 1-5-2011 iklqu iq<s

dk;Z{ks=kP;k ckgsjhy varjklkBh okgrqd vuqnku ns; vkgs- lgdkjh lk[kj dkj[kkU;kauk R;kaps dk;Z{ks= fuf'pr d#u ns.;kr vkysys vlrs- tjh lnj dk;Z{ks= izR;sd fn'ksyk deh tkLr vlys rjhgh ek- ea=heaMGkus ?ksrYksY;k fu.kZ;kP;k vuq'kaxkus 'kklukus ?ksrysY;k fu.kZ;kuqlkj dkj[kkU;kP;k dk;Z{ks=kP;k

ckgsjhy okgrqdhP;k varjkph izR;{k ekst.kh d#u okgrqd vuqnku ns.ks visf{kr vkgs- R;keqGs lgdkjh lk[kj dkj[kkU;kadjhrk Bjkfod varjkph e;kZnk fuf'pr

d#u nsrk ;s.kkj ukgh-

4- vkiY;k fn-5-10-2011 P;k izLrkokr ueqn dsY;kuqlkj [kktxh lk[kj dkj[kkU;kauk dk;Z{ks= ulrs- 'kklu fu.kZ;kr ueqn dsY;kizek.ks dk;Z{ks=kP;k

ckgsjhr okgrqdhlkBh okgrqd vuqnku ns.;kph vaetctko.kh djrkauk dk;Z{ks= ulY;kdkj.kkus [kktxh dkj[kkU;kauk okgrqd vuqnku eatqj djrkauk Bjkfod varjkph e;kZnk fuf'pr d#u ns.ks mfpr vlY;kps fnlwu ;srs- lcc] fn- 6-5-2011 P;k 'kklu fu.kZ;kpk okgrqd vuqnku eatqj djrkauk [kktxh lk[kj dkj[kkU;kauk 50 fd-eh- P;k iq<hy okgrqdhlkBh okgrqd vuqnku eatqj dj.;kr ;kos-

[email protected]& ¼xks-uk- j.k[kkacs½ lg lfpo] egkjk"Vª 'kkluß

Thus, the stand taken by respondents No. 1 before the Court is

inconsistent and contrary to the directives of the Government contained in

sgp 16 WP415.2012.odt

letter dt. 30.03.2012. In spite of the direction given by respondent No. 1, the

respondent No. 2 has not acted upon the Government directions. In view of

this the action on the part of respondents can certainly be said to be unjust,

improper, arbitrary & unsustainable in law.

17. In view of the statement made by the ld. Counsel for the

petitioner that the amount of subsidy which the petitioner has claimed on

account of transportation and crushing of excess sugarcane is already paid to

the farmers while paying the price of sugarcane there appears to be no

justifiable reason for the respondents to settle the claim and make payment.

Since the amount of subsidy as claimed already paid to the individual

agriculturalists by the petitioner, what is claimed by petitioner is the

reimbursement of that amount, therefore, there is no reason for the

respondents to refuse to pay such legitimate claim of petitioner. In this view

the excuses put forth by the respondents for not paying the amount found to

be without any reason and justifiable cause.

18. In the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1 dt. 29.04.2011, it is

stated that Government has taken the decision to pay the amount to the

petitioner. However, it is mentioned that such decision shall be subject to

some clarification to be obtained in the matter. We do not appreciate the

language used and stand taken on the part of the respondents that they would

comply the order subject to some order or clarification to be obtained in

sgp 17 WP415.2012.odt

another proceedings. The respondent should know that once court passes any

order, they are bound to comply with the order passed by that Court. The

order passed by this Court cannot be subject to any such clarification or order

to be obtained in other matter.

19. As discussed in the foregoing paras, the petitioner has

transported the excess sugarcane and crushed the same pursuant to order of

allotment dt. 14.06.2011. The GR dt. 21.10.2011 by which the decision was

taken not to pay subsidy to private sugar factories was issued much after the

work executed by the petitioner. In such eventuality, the respondents can not

refuse to make the legitimate claim of the petitioner under the guise of GR dt.

21.10.2011. The GR dt. 21.10.2011 cannot be made applicable to work which

has been executed and carried out by private sugar factories prior to

21.10.2011. In respect of the claim of the petitioner, the respondents are only

expected to examine as to whether there was a order of allotment and the

work has been carried out or not in terms of the allotment order. They can

verify the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the record

which was directed to be maintained and information to be furnished by the

petitioner. The respondent can very well verify before releasing the payment

as to whether the petitioner has paid the subsidy amount to individual

farmer/agriculturists by including the same in the price of sugarcane paid to

such farmers/agriculturalists whose excess sugarcane was crushed during the

said period. In the event such amount is found to be paid, the respondents are

sgp 18 WP415.2012.odt

bound to reimburse the amount to petitioner. Apart from this the circular dt.

21.10.2011 refers to subsidy on account of reduction of percentage of sugar

content. The claim of petitioner is in respect of transport subsidy.

20. In view of the discussion made in the foregoing paras, we have

no hesitation to hold that the petitioner is entitled to claim the transport

subsidy. However, it is clarified that, the decision in the case is purely based

upon the facts of the case brought before us.

21. In the result, the petition is allowed in terms of prayer clauses

'A' and 'B' of the petition subject to verification of claim of petitioner by

respondents & satisfying themselves that the petitioner has already paid the

amount of subsidy claimed to individual farmers whose excess sugarcane was

transported and crushed by petitioner as per order of allotment dt. 14.06.2011

issued by respondent No. 2. The amount so determined shall be paid to the

petitioner within three months from the date of this order with interest

@Rs. 6% p.a. from the date the respondent No. 3 forwarded the proposal to

respondent No. 2 with recommendation to make payment.

22. Rule made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs.

                    [ V. L. ACHLIYA, J. ]             [ A. V. NIRGUDE, J. ]