Bandu Annasaheb Pandarkar And ... vs Laxman Bhausaheb Gadhe And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1339 Bom

                               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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

9 cp314.16

10. Hence, Contempt Petition stands disposed

of. No costs.

      (K.L.WADANE)        (S.V.GANGAPURWALA)
               JUDGE                  JUDGE

dbm/cp314.16