Natural Sugar And Allied ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3424 Bom

                                    (1)                           902 wp 1602.14

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                       WRIT PETITION NO. 1602 OF 2014


1.    Natural Sugar and Allied Industries Ltd.
      Sainagar, Ranjani, Tq. Kallamb,
      District Osmanabad
      Through its Chairman and Managing Director
      Shri Bhairavnath Bhagwanrao Thombre,
      Age: 60 years, Occ. Bussines and Agri
      R/o. Sainagar, Ranjani, Tq. Kallamb,
      District Osmanabad.

2.    Gangamai Industries and Construction Ltd.
      Najik Babhulgaon, Post Rakshi,
      Tq. Shevgaon, District Ahmednagar
      through its Director and Chairman.

3.    Chhatrapati Sambhajiraje Sahakar Udyog Ltd.
      Dindayal Nagar, Chite Pimpalgaon,
      Tq. and District Ahmednagar.
      Through its Executive Chairman
      and Managing Director.                      ...          Petitioners

               Versus

1.    The State of Maharashtra
      through for Secretary for
      Co-operation, Marketing and
      Textile Department,
      Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2.    The Commissioner of Sugar,
      Maharashtra State,
      Pune.                                           ...      Respondents




     ::: Uploaded on - 05/07/2017            ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 07:28:01 :::
                                                (2)                              902 wp 1602.14

                                  ----
Mr. V.D. Hon, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. A.V. Hon, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, AGP for respondent-state.
                                  ----

                                         CORAM :       S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
                                                       MANGESH S. PATIL, JJ.

                                         DATE        : 21.06.2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

.               Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

consent of learned advocates for the parties.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

the petitioners are seeking a declaration that para 3 of the Government

Resolution dated 21.10.2011 is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution

of India as it creates a hostile discrimination between similarly placed

persons. It is stated that the mandate of this Article is violated by a

completely arbitrary distinction sought to be made.

3. By prayer clause 'C' the petitioners are praying for issuance

of a writ of Mandamus or a writ, order, direction in nature thereof to pay

to them the compensation for the recovery loss and compensation for the

transportation charges as per the Government Resolutions dated

14.11.2011 and 06.05.2011 by ignoring para no.3 of the subsequent

(3) 902 wp 1602.14

Government Resolution dated 21.10.2011.

4. The above reliefs are sought in the following factual

background. Each of the petitioners before us are limited companies but

carrying on business of manufacturing sugar at their factories. Thus they

are non co-operative sugar factories. The petitioners have been

registered and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The first

respondent is the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary,

Department of Co-operation, Marketing and Textiles, it has issued the

impugned Government Resolution. The second respondent is once again

a State official. He is designated as the Commissioner of Sugar but

essentially functions as a Registrar of the Co-operative Sugar Factories.

It is the second respondent who implements the Government's policies

and measures so as to promote the manufacture of sugar in the co-

operative and non co-operative sector.

5. The petitioners at the outset have clarified that, though,

there is no express provision made in that behalf in the Government

Resolution dated 21.10.2011, they are requesting this Court to direct the

respondents to pay a sum of recovery loss compensation. The second

request is to pay the transport compensation.

(4) 902 wp 1602.14

6. Though, above requests made to the State have not been

expressly rejected but no action has been taken on the petitioners

applications in that behalf made in writing.

7. The petitioners had, during a crisis faced by the sugar

factories, particularly in the co-operative sector as they could not in the

crushing season collect and process the entire sugarcane crop, rendered

services to the Government. They have gone beyond a distance of 50

kilometers from their area of operation to the areas of operation of these

co-operative sugar factories and although the crushing season was over

they collected this excess sugar at their own costs, charges and

expenses.

8. The petitioners seek the reimbursement of the costs. The

petitioners submit that as part of a welfare measure to assist the

sugarcane farmers because there was a excess crop and which could not

be transported to the sugar factories in time and before the crushing

season or the crop far exceeded the requirement of the sugarcane as raw

material of the cooperative sugar factories, collected the same. This

helped the farmers to obtain certain benefits and in terms of the

applicable policies.

(5) 902 wp 1602.14

9. The petitioners have pointed out that the nature of relief

would be clear if we appreciate that in the year 2010-2011 some co-

operative sugar factories could not commence their crushing season. The

Government, therefore, realized that the agriculturist and sugarcane

farmers who were cultivating sugarcane faced numerous difficulties, they

were without any remedy. These sugar factories nearby could not crush

the sugarcane of such cultivators. It was in these circumstances that a

decision was taken by the State to call upon the other sugar factories or

even private sector sugar factories not to close their crushing seasons or

their operations without the permission of the Commissioner of Sugar,

the second respondent. The petitioners submit that the crushing license

which had been given to them contains certain terms and conditions. It

stated that sugar factories will not be permitted to be closed without

prior permission of the second respondent. It was stated that the excess

sugarcane which was available should be crushed by the existing sugar

factories which may be in co-operative sector or in non co-operative

sector. We will briefly refer to these Government Resolutions. The

petitioners have annexed several other documents but what we find from

this bulky record is that we are not concerned with the issue which is

sought to be connected and linked with this petition, namely, State Aid

(6) 902 wp 1602.14

and Financial Assistance to Establishment of new sugar factories. We are

essentially concerned with the implementation of the policy decision by

the State. If that implementation results in a hostile discrimination as

complained and a violation of the constitutional mandate enshrined in

Article 14, then, we would have to interfere in our writ jurisdiction is the

submission. It is in that regard that the first Government Resolution

dated 14.03.2011 is referred by us.

10. A copy of the same is at page 86 of the paper book. It is

issued on the subject that in the crushing season 2010-2011 there was

excess sugarcane crop and which could not be owned by the sugar

factories within the area of operation of whom this crop was cultivated. If

such crop is collected by the non-cooperative sugar factories and claimed

as one in excess, then, some assistance in the form of reimbursement of

transportation allowance is the request which was considered by the

State and seriously.

11. The State took a decision that in this crushing season, if the

sugarcane factories are ready and willing to pick up the excess sugarcane

from about a distance of 50 kilometers, then, the costs of transportation

of such excess sugarcane crop within this area would be reimbursed at

(7) 902 wp 1602.14

the rate specified in this Government Resolution. There are specific

conditions on which such reimbursement of transportation charges is

permissible. Clauses 2 and 3 in that behalf are clear. After this

Government Resolution was issued another resolution followed on

06.05.2011, annexure 'F' page 89 which is on the subject of the

assistance/aid on increasing transportation and the crushing of excess

sugar during the same crushing season. After referring to the

14.03.2011 resolution, it is stated that there was a doubt as to whether

even if the excess sugarcane crop is transported and brought to the

factory premises by some of the sugar factories, the State was not sure

that all of would be crushed and so as to manufacture sugar, however,

some sugar factories co-operated and by extending their crushing season

they ensured that such excess crop collected is crushed during this

crushing season. It is for reimbursing the cost of extending this crushing

season that the Government issued this Government Resolution. The

compensation in that regard is determined @ Rs. 65/- per tonne and

would be payable in terms of these Government Resolutions. Then, there

is a circular dated 10.05.2011 and the Regional Directors of Sugar were

informed that the above decisions have been taken. However, for

implementation of these decisions, there are certain clarifications which

are required, that is how in this circular by bifurcating the nature of these

(8) 902 wp 1602.14

two reimbursements, the State clarified the matter further. There was

also a guidance given as to how these policy measures have to be

implemented.

12. The petitioners, then, rely upon an order dated 24.06.2011

and which is issued in cases of individual petitioners. According to the

petitioners, this would indicate as to how each one of them participated

and co-operated in this measure evolved by the State. They abided all

the stipulations and terms and conditions of the applicable Government

Resolutions.

13. However, on 28.04.2012 some of the affected sugar factories

approached the Minister of Co-operation, Government of Maharashtra

and pointed out that these sugar factories have crushed the excess

sugarcane crop and which was brought to the factories at the costs,

charges and expenses incurred by them. Though, the farmers and

agriculturists have been compensated, the reimbursement in terms of

the Government resolutions has not been made. A claim of Rs.

01,09,13,803/- was raised.

14. The petitioners also rely upon the Government Resolution

dated 21.10.2011 and which refers to all the earlier Government

(9) 902 wp 1602.14

Resolutions. It also refers to the terms thereof and purports to clarify

that the government has released a sum of Rs. 53,71,78,429/- so that

the reimbursements can be made. Then, the correspondence on the

subject is referred but it is stated that though some of the sugar factories

have approached the competent authorities and seeking the

reimbursement, the details have not been forwarded by them. It is in

these circumstances, the second respondent was directed that all the

proposals should be scrutinized strictly in accordance with the

Government Resolutions and thereafter recommended for payment by

the government.

15. At the same time, the impugned clarification is issued.

16. It would be proper to re-produce the clarification as

appearing in the government resolution in the language of the State,

namely, in Marathi. Clause 3 at page 111 reads as under:

"3- lk[kj vk;q D r] iq . k s ;k au h mijk sD r l an HkkZ / khu dz - 6 o 7 P;k i=kUo; s lknj d sy sY ;k dkj[kkU;kP;k ukok ae /; s dkgh [kktxh dkj[kkU;k ap k leko s' k vkg s] rFkfi] tufgr ;kfpdk dz - [email protected] e/khy flfOgy vW f Iy sd s' ku u ac n [email protected] ckcr ek- mPp U;k;ky;ku s [kktxh] lk[kj dkj[kkU;k au k 'kklukp s dk s. kr sg h vuq n ku loyr 'kklu Fkdgeh b- loyr feG.kkj

( 10 ) 902 wp 1602.14

ukgh-"

17. A bare perusal of the same would reveal that the State was

of the opinion that in terms of the proposals for reimbursement received

and for reimbursement of the above costs, the second respondent is in

receipt of some proposals from private sugar factories. Meaning thereby,

these are not sugar factories in the co-operative sector but in private

sector. Since there a P.I.L. No. 20 of 2006 is pending before the Principal

Seat of this Court and by virtue of an order passed in Civil Application

No. 1379 of 2009 therein, these private sugar factories would not be

eligible for any reimbursements or concessions in terms of these

Government Resolutions.

18. It is this stipulation and relying upon the interim order passed

in the above Civil Application which is challenged before us in this

petition.

19. Mr. V.D. Hon, learned senior counsel appearing for the

petitioners in this petition would submit that the State Government has

in making this distinction and discrimination acted contrary to the

mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While explaining to

the Court, the subject on which the Government Resolution was issued

( 11 ) 902 wp 1602.14

and elaborating its contents further Mr. Hon would submit that the

subject Government Resolutions have been issued so as to assist the

farmers and agriculturists who have cultivated sugarcane crop in excess.

The sugarcane farmers whose cultivated crop exceeded the requirement

of the sugar factories in the area of their operation, were in great

difficulties and faced severe financial hardship. The crop was lying as it

is. It was un-harvested. It had to be harvested but some of the sugar

factories had exhausted their requirement and their crushing seasons

were coming to an end. They were not interested in lifting this

sugarcane and bringing it to their factory. It is at that time the State

intervened and invited all the sugar factories to help and even by

extending their crushing season collect this crop arrange it to be

transported to their factories and later on crushed. That would be

possible by extending the crushing season. This was a proposal

enunciated by the State and a measure in which any sugar factory could

have participated. There was no distinction made in these Government

Resolutions between co-operative and non co-operative sugar factories.

Any sugar factory and irrespective of whether it is in private sector or in

co-operative can come forward and extend this assistance. Once the

petitioners responded then, merely because they are set up as private

sugar factories or as limited companies no distinction can be made purely

( 12 ) 902 wp 1602.14

on that basis and for denying the assistance/reimbursement. This issue

has no link at all with the subject matter of the P.I.L. The subject matter

of the P.I.L. is establishment of new sugar factories and whether licenses

to establish them should be issued indiscriminately. There was an

unhealthy competition and generated in the co-operative sugar sector.

Further there was excess or bumper sugarcane crop, but no opportunity

to have it crushed and by forwarding it to the sugar factories does not

mean new licenses have to be issued without any rational basis. The

licenses were issued for the asking and that has completely ruined the

health of the co-operative sugar factories. The existing sugar factories

are in doldrums and incurring huge losses. The P.I.L. projected the issue

of issuance of licenses even to private sugar factories but they were not

given on any rational basis. The licenses were issued to a few politically

connected and favourites. Mr. Hon would submit that this subject is

completely unrelated to the issue at hand. We are concerned, according

to him, only with the distinction that is sought to be made by the State in

denying the reimbursement of the transportation charges. Mr. Hon would

submit that apart from the State stands being untenable in law there is

also a judgment of this Court dated 06.05.2016 delivered in Writ Petition

no. 415 of 2013. That was delivered in the case of Gangakhed Sugar

and Energy Ltd., who was denied similar benefits. The Division Bench

( 13 ) 902 wp 1602.14

directed that such benefits be made available and the amounts in that

behalf released on proper verification. Mr. Hon would submit that this

judgment has been accepted by the State hence he would submit that

this Court should strike down para 3 of the subject Government

Resolution and clarify that irrespective of whether the sugar factories are

in co-operative sector or private sector they must be extended the

benefits of the Government Resolutions holding the field. Therefore, the

writ petition be allowed.

20. On the other hand, we have a affidavit in reply and filed by

the State affirmed by the Director of Sugar, Aurangabad Region,

Aurangabad. In this affidavit in para 2 he does not dispute that the

Government Resolution dated 21.10.2011 has been issued. He does not

dispute that it contains paragraph no.3, however, he submits that the

petitioners challenge is without any basis. He purports to clarify that this

Court at its Principal Seat was concerned with several civil applications in

the P.I.L. No. 20 of 2006. This Court was pleased to record a statement

made on behalf of the Government that presently there was no policy of

providing any regular financial assistance to private sugar factories. The

Court further observed that permission for crushing to new private sugar

factories shall be granted subject to the condition that the State

( 14 ) 902 wp 1602.14

Government shall not provide any financial assistance in the nature of

grants, subsidies or guarantees. These directions were applicable to the

applicants in the Civil Applications and also to such applicants who would

thereafter apply for opening of private sugar factories. The contentions

of the petitioner, therefore, that the directions of the High Court in the

P.I.L. are unconnected to the issue at hand cannot be accepted, it is

submitted by him that the directions issued by this Court in the above

P.I.L. and the Civil Applications will apply to all private sugar factories

and the State Government is bound by the same, that is how the State

would justify the incorporation and insertion of paragraph no.3 in the

Government Resolution. Then, it is urged that the petitioners are under

a misconception that the State is under obligation to provide financial

assistance to them for loss of recovery and expenses for transport of

sugarcane. The States policy is to promote co-operative sugar factories

as its ownership is with the sugarcane growers who are also share

holders of the same, in co-operative sugar factories all profits generated

are passed to the shareholders in the form of cane payment and

dividends. The co-operative sugar mills mostly work on the principle of

no profit. On the contrary private sugar mills are owned by private

entrepreneurs and no sugarcane grower has any stake in its operation

and management, the aim of these sugar factories is to make profit.

( 15 ) 902 wp 1602.14

Hence these private sugar factories cannot be brought on par with the

co-operative sugar factories. It is in these circumstances that no

financial assistance, aid, subsidy or incentives can be granted. The State

is well within its power to restrict the grant of subsidies to the co-

operative sugar factories and to the exclusion of private sugar mills.

Hence, the petitioners cannot claim any of the reliefs as prayed in the

writ petition.

21. It is this stand which is reiterated before us by the learned

A.G.P. appearing for the State, he also brought to our notice the order

passed on 27.09.2016 in Civil Application No. 105 of 206 in P.I.L. No. 20

of 2006. He would then submit that there is a clear distinction and

emerging from the record of this petition and that of Writ Petition No.

415 of 2013. He would therefore submit that the said decision has no

application to the facts of the present case and the Writ Petition deserves

to be dismissed.

22. With the assistance of the learned Advocates appearing for

both sides, we have perused the Writ Petition and all the annexures

thereto. We have also perused the affidavit in reply and the decisions

brought to our notice.

( 16 ) 902 wp 1602.14

23. At the outset, we must clarify that this Court is not concerned

with framing of any policy by the State. This Court cannot direct framing

of any policy much less its implementation in a particular manner. It is

entirely for the State to take policy decisions but while taking and

implementing them the State cannot act unfairly, unreasonably and in a

discriminatory and arbitrary manner. Article 14 of the Constitution

guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws. We have

before us two policy decisions and which are traceable to Article 162 of

the Constitution. The Court is not concerned with the plight of the

sugarcane farmers or the co-operative sugar factories. The State may

evolve and make schemes to assist them, to provide them aid to tide

over any crisis much less financial crisis. It is entirely for the State to

assist the co-operative sugar factories and which are stated to be in

doldrums. Therefore, this Court has no concern with how much

assistance the State wishes to provide to these co-operative sugar

factories. In this case, we are concerned with the interpretation of the

these Government Resolutions and which are on the same subject. They

are on the subject of the crushing of excess sugarcane. The issue before

the State was there was excess sugarcane crop in the State. The

sugarcane crop growers, farmers and agriculturists were requesting the

State to assist them in some manner or the other so that the standing

( 17 ) 902 wp 1602.14

crop can be harvested. By mere harvesting the standing crop the

problem faced by them cannot be solved. The harvested crop has to find

a market and in the market a price. It is common ground that the co-

operative sugar factories have members and these members have their

farms. Meaning thereby the farmers and agriculturists and the sugarcane

cultivators are associated with the co-operative sugar factories. They

may be associated in the form of shareholders or members and allotted

specific shares and are deriving benefits in the form of cane price and

dividends. The State is aware that these cultivators provide sugarcane

crop to the sugar factory who in turn pays them the price prevailing in

the market or determined by the State. However, each of these sugar

factories have a ear-marked or specific season for crushing. Thus, after

the sugarcane crop is fully grown and ready for harvesting, it is

harvested and brought to the sugar factory. Thereafter, at the

commencement of sugarcane crushing season this crop is stored by the

sugar factories as raw materials. In the crushing season this raw

material is taken for crushing and to eventually produce and manufacture

sugar. Now, it is common ground that there are private sugar factories in

the State. They have identified sugar cultivators and sugarcane crop

growers who supply them sugarcane crop as raw material for

manufacture and production of sugar. They may not operate on a co-

( 18 ) 902 wp 1602.14

operative basis but it is the State who extended the invitation to all sugar

factories irrespective of whether they are in co-operative sector or

otherwise to come to the aid of the farmers. The co-operative or non co-

operative sugar factories were invited to participate in a welfare

measure. That welfare measure has been enunciated in sufficient details

by us herein-above. In that these co-operative or non co-operative

sugar factories by extending their crushing seasons collected the excess

sugarcane crop. That is how they provided an opportunity to the

sugarcane crop growers who had excess sugarcane crop to mitigate their

losses. They could sustain themselves because of the timely assistance.

The petitioners not only provided such assistance by collection of the

sugarcane crop but even processed and crushed the same by extending

their crushing seasons. There is no denial of the factual statement in the

petition that the petitioners did participate in this measure. Further,

there is no denial of the fact that the sugarcane crop in excess was lifted

and brought to the sugar factories. There is also no denial of the fact

that the sugarcane brought in excess was crushed by some of the

factories by extending their crushing seasons. In such a welfare

measure enunciated by the State, all may have participated including co-

operative sugar factories.                The question is how could there be a

distinction     and     differentiation      on    the   basis    of    the     organisation,




                                           ( 19 )                         902 wp 1602.14

management and administration of the affairs of these factories.                       The

sugar factories may be organized on co-operative principles. They may

have been deriving financial assistance and other benefits from the

State. They may be working on no profit basis but the question remains

is in this welfare measure even those with profit motives participated and

were rather invited. Once they were free to participate, their

participation is sought, their involvement is encouraged, then, we do not

see any justification for such distinction as is made. This is not a case

where the State is extending its a helping hand to establish a new sugar

factory. It may well extend a helping hand to those who are interested in

establishing a new sugar factory on co-operative basis, it may as well

deny any aid or assistance to those who wish to establish such sugar

factories in private sector. They may be told to generate funds on their

own. They may also be told to function on their own and without seeking

any subsidy, however, for this limited purpose there can be distinction

made by the State. However, when the prime object and purpose of the

Government Resolutions is to provide assistance to the sugarcane

growers and farmers in distress and difficulties, the State cannot deny

the reimbursement of the costs incurred by the petitioners. It cannot

deny the same by making an artificial distinction or differentiation having

no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The reasons of denial

( 20 ) 902 wp 1602.14

also have no hearing to the object.

24. It is well settled that Article 14 permits reasonable

classification. Any classification which is reasonable based on an

intelligible differentia having a nexus or relation to the objects ought to

be achieved is permissible and no Court frowns on such a distinction or

differentiation. The writ Court only intervenes when the differentiation or

distinction is nothing but hostile discrimination, when there is absolutely

no basis or foundation for a distinction and it is entirely artificial having

no relation with the object sought to be achieved. The Court must then

intervene. We have not been shown any nexus with the issue involved in

the P.I.L. and the one at hand. That has absolutely no nexus with the

purpose and object of the Government Resolutions involved in this

petition. The issue of opening new sugar factories in the State and not

encouraging private sector to establish such sugar factories is entirely

different. The P.I.L. and the directions must be viewed from that angle.

We are not concerned with an issue of establishment of any private sugar

factory nor is any private sugar factory before us seeking any assistance

of the State for its establishment.

25. The sugar factories before us are seeking relief because the

( 21 ) 902 wp 1602.14

State has made a completely artificial distinction. We find substance in

their complaint.

26. It is in these circumstances, we find that the reliance placed

by Mr. Hon on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gangakhed

Sugar and Energy Ltd. to be apposite. The Division Bench was

considering precisely the same grievance. The Government Resolutions

which we have referred, have been referred extensively in paragraph

nos. 2, 3 and 4. The Division Bench found that as the conditions were

favourable for sugarcane crop and there was a bumper sugarcane crop in

most areas of the State, most of the sugar factories could not complete

the crushing of sugarcane within the area of their operation till March

2011. In order to meet such emergent situation and to mitigate the

losses of the cane growers, the State took a policy decision. The sugar

factories who crushed the sugarcane beyond 50 kilometers on or after

16.03.2011 will be entitled to transport subsidy. The Government

Resolution was issued. The Government Resolution also called upon the

sugar factories to provide details and these government resolutions

specifically permitted the Commissioner to invite even private sugar

factories, there was no prohibition of any nature and enunciated in these

Government Resolutions. That is how an allotment order was issued to

( 22 ) 902 wp 1602.14

the petitioner in that petition to transport and crush sugarcane in excess

of the area of Barshi of District Solapur, Kalamb, Bhoom, Washi and

Paranda of District Osmanabad. The order issued for collection of such

sugarcane crop not being abided would invite the action in terms thereof.

That is how the petitioners pursuant to this Government Resolution

harvested, transported and crushed the excess sugarcane. Thereafter

relying on these allotment orders it submitted its bills. The bills were for

reimbursement of the transportation cost. There was complete scrutiny

and verification of these bills. The recommendation was also made by

the third respondent of to that petition, namely, the Regional Joint

Director Sugar, Nanded to pay the transport subsidy. Still that was not

paid. It is in these circumstances, that this Court heard both sides at

great length. It referred to the stand of the Government and specifically

raised before us, namely, it is the order of this Court in the P.I.L. which

prevents the State from making the payment to private sugar factories.

On due consideration of the materials placed before it, this Court in its

judgment in Writ Petition No. 415 of 2013, held in paragraphs 10, 11 and

12 as under:

"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.

( 23 ) 902 wp 1602.14

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 petitioner 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 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 dtd. 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 take decision to pay the transport subsidy to sugar factories who make the crushing of excess sugarcane beyond the area of their operation w.e.f. 01.05.2011 and

( 24 ) 902 wp 1602.14

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 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.

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

( 25 ) 902 wp 1602.14

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."

27. We are therefore of the firm opinion that the distinction as

sought to be made by the State has no basis at all. It is completely

hostile and has no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be

achieved by the subject Government Resolution. In the circumstances,

we allow this petition. We permit the petitioners to forward their bills for

reimbursement of both costs, the recovery costs as also the

transportation charges to the Competent Authority and the Competent

Authority shall verify the claims in accordance with the subject

Government Resolutions and on the touch stone of the same and if the

petitioners satisfy these terms and conditions, then, the amount be

released in favour of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and

( 26 ) 902 wp 1602.14

within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this

order, failing which the amounts crystallized would carry interest @ 6%

per annum from the date of the applications / proposals of the

petitioners till the date of disbursement / payment. The rule is made

absolute in the above terms with no orders as to costs. Needles to clarify

that in scrutinizing and verifying the bills and in terms of the above

Government Resolution, the State will ignore para 3 of the Government

Resolution dated 21.10.2011.

       [MANGESH S. PATIL, J.]                 [S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.]




mub