Bombay High Court
Tanajirao Tatyasaheb Kokare And ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 27 September, 2017
Bench: R.M. Savant
wp-9185-17(reserved)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.9185 OF 2017
1 Tanajirao Tatyasaheb Kokare )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: Pandare, 413110, Taluka-Baramati )
District Pune )
2 Balasaheb Patil Taware )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: At post Shivnagar, )
Dtaluka Baramati, District Pune )
3 Shivajirao Nanasaheb Jagtap )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: Pandare, 413110, Taluka-Baramati )
District Pune )
4 Sangita Balasaheb Kokare )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: Pandare, 413110, Taluka-Baramati )
District Pune )
5 Ramchandra Narayanrao Deokate )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: Nirwagaj, Taluka Baramati )
District Pune )
6 Vilas Rishikant Deokate )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: Mekhali, Taluka-Baramati )
District Pune )
7 Madanrao Tanajirao Deokate )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at Post Nira Wagaj Taluka Baramati )
District Pune )
8 Anil Nanasaheb Jagtap )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: Pandare, 413110, Taluka-Baramati )
District Pune )
mmj 1 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 01:45:55 :::
wp-9185-17(reserved)
9 Bhagatsinh Hanumantrao Jagtap )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: Pandare, 413110, Taluka-Baramati )
District Pune )
10 Madhavrao Shankarrao Dhawan )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: Malegaon Colony, 24, Phata )
Taluka Baramati, District Pune )
11 Vasantrao Baburao Taware )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: Malegaon, Taluka-Baramati )
District Pune )
12 Prakashrao Bhikoba Taware )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: Sangavi, Taluka-Baramati )
District Pune )
13 Karan Sambhajirao Khalate )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: Kambaleshwar, Taluka-Baramati )
District Pune )
14 Dattatray Ganpatrao Gaware )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: 24 Phata, Gaware Vasti, )
Taluka-Baramati, District Pune )
15 Satish Harishchandra Taware )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: Pavane Wadi, Malegaon )
Taluka-Baramati District Pune )
16 Govindrao Ramchandra Deokate )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: Nira Wagaj, Taluka-Baramati )
District Pune )
17 Ramdas Tukaram Atole )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: 22 Phata, Khandaj Taluka-Baramati)
District Pune )
mmj 2 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 01:45:55 :::
wp-9185-17(reserved)
18 Rajendra Sakharam Burungale )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: 22 Phata, Shivnagar 413116, )
Taluka-Baramati District Pune )
19 Vitthalrao Ramchandra Deokate )
Adult, Occupation-Agriculturist )
R/at: Mekhali, Taluka-Baramati )
District Pune ) ..Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Maharashtra )
through its Secretary to the Department )
of Cooperation, Textile & Marketing )
having his office at Mantralaya, Mumbai )
2 The Commissioner of Sugar )
having office at Sakhar Sankul, )
Agricultural College Compound Shivaji )
Nagar Pune 411 005 )
3 The Regional Joint Director (Sugar) )
Pune Division, having office at Sakhar )
Sankul, Shivaji Nagar, Pune 411005 )
4 Malegaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana )
Limited )
A Cooperative Society registered under )
the Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 )
having office at Shivnagar, Taluka )
Baramati, District Pune, through its )
Managing Director )
5 Vasantdada Sugar Institute, )
A Sugar Industry Research Institute & )
Consultant, preparing DPRs & )
Feasibility Appraisal Reports, )
through its Director General having )
Office at Manjari Bk., Pune 412 307. ) ...Respondents
mmj 3 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 27/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 28/09/2017 01:45:55 :::
wp-9185-17(reserved)
Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. S. S. Kanetkar for the
Petitioners
Mr. A. V. Anturkar Senior Advocate a/w Ms Manisha Jagtap i/b J. Shekhar
& Co. for the Respondent No.4
Ms Kavita Solunke AGP for the Respondent State
CORAM :R. M. SAVANT, &
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ
RESERVED ON: 8th September, 2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 27th September 2017
JUDGMENT (PER R. M. SAVANT J.)
1 Rule, considering the challenge raised heard forthwith.
2 The above Writ Petition takes exception to the orders dated 13-6-
2017 and 17-6-2017 passed by the Director of Sugar granting financial and
administrative approval for the modernization of the sugar factory and
distillery respectively, in so far as the Respondent No.4 sugar factory is
concerned. The Respondent No.5 is a formal party as no reliefs are claimed
against the said Respondent.
3 The Respondent No.4 is a co-operative sugar factory (sakhar
karkhana) registered under the provisions of the Maharashtra Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 (for short the MCS Act). The Respondent No.4 has
approximately 14,000 members on its roll. The above Petition has been filed
by the Petitioners who claim to be "A" class members out of which 6 Petitioners
mmj 4 of 21
wp-9185-17(reserved)
are the Directors of the Respondent No.4 and therefore the members of the
board of the Respondent No.4. The genesis of the impugned orders passed by
the Director of Sugar lies in the order dated 11-4-2017 of a Division Bench of
this Court in PIL No.20 of 2006. The said PIL had arisen out of the letter dated
15-6-2005 addressed by one Shri Ashok Kulkarni who had worked as Project
Consultant and Co-ordinator for various sugar factories to the Hon'ble the
Chief Justice of this Court regarding the conditions of the sugar factories in the
State of Maharashtra. The said letter came to be treated as a PIL wherein the
said Shri Ashok Kulkarni was shown as the Petitioner. This Court in the said
PIL has passed orders from time to time including one directing the
Commissioner of Co-operation not to issue any permission for the
establishment of any new sugar factories. On 14-3-2011 a Division Bench of
this Court directed the State Government and the Commissioner of Co-
operation not to give any permission to any sugar factory for expansion,
modernization, alteration without the leave of this Court.
4 It is pursuant to the said order dated 14-3-2011 passed in the said
PIL, the Respondent No.4 filed a Civil Application being No.139 of 2016
seeking a direction to be issued to the Respondent No.2 to grant permission to
the Respondent No.4 for modernization of its sugar factory and distillery and
expansion of co-generation capacity from 21MW per day to 36MW per day.
The Petitioners herein had filed Civil Applications being Nos.145 of 2016 and
mmj 5 of 21
wp-9185-17(reserved)
12 of 2017, opposing the relief sought by the Respondent No.4. Along with the
Respondent No.4 some other co-operative sugar factories had also filed Civil
Applications for the same relief.
A Division Bench of this Court (V. M. Kanade and C. V. Bhadang
JJ.) after considering the said Civil Applications by order dated 11-4-2017
observed that it was not possible for it to entertain the Civil Applications
seeking expansion, modernization and repairing and therefore directed the
Commissioner of Sugar to consider such Applications on their own merits and
in accordance with law. It was observed by the Division Bench that while
examining the said Applications, the Commissioner of Sugar shall keep in
mind the parameters which are laid down in various orders passed by this
Court in the said PIL. In the context of the challenge raised in the instant
Petition, paragraph 4 of the said order assumes some importance and is
therefore reproduced hereinunder for the sake of ready reference :
"4. We are of the view that it will not be possible for this
Court to entertain the application for expansion/ modernisation/
alteration/ addition programme. It is therefore, clarified that the
Commissioner of Sugar shall examine each application to its
aforesaid extent on merits and in accordance with law and it is
no longer necessary to seek leave of this Court for that purpose.
In view of this, all civil applications are disposed of. It is clarified
that while examining the applications which are received, the
Commissioner of Sugar shall keep in mind the parameters,
which are laid down in various orders passed by this Court from
time to time."
5 The State Government has issued circulars for streamlining the
mmj 6 of 21
wp-9185-17(reserved)
procedure for consideration of the applications filed by the sugar factories for
various permissions. In the circular dated 9-4-2009 the State Government has
provided that such applications should be routed through the Regional Director
of Sugar. It is further made clear that applications not rooted through the
Regional Director of Sugar would not be considered. By a further circular
dated 23-12-2009 the Regional Directors of Sugar have been informed that
they are to ensure that the proposals are accompanied by the documents
mentioned in the said circular. The said circular enumerates the documents
which are to accompany the applications for such permissions, amongst the
documents are the "Health Certificate" and the Detailed Project Report (DPR
for short). The said circular provides that the proposal should be submitted by
the Regional Director of Sugar after all the defects are removed so that
approval to the proposal can be granted expeditiously. Then there is a circular
dated 30-8-2003 which makes out suggestions as regards the preparation of
the DPR.
6 The Respondent No.4 herein applied for financial and
administrative approval for modernization of the distillery to the Commissioner
of Sugar on 3-5-2017. The Respondent No.4 also applied for the financial and
administrative approval for the modernization of the sugar factory on 5-6-
2017. It seems that the Respondent No.4 had simultaneously applied to the
Vasantdada Institute of Sugar, Pune (VIS for short), for preparing the DPR.
mmj 7 of 21
wp-9185-17(reserved)
The VIS had submitted its report in May 2017 to the Respondent No.4 which
was accordingly forwarded to the office of the Commissioner of Sugar by the
Respondent No.4. The Respondent No.4 had also as per the requirement
submitted a Health Certificate. The Commissioner of Sugar by the impugned
orders dated 13-6-2017 and 17-6-2017 accorded financial and administrative
approval to the modernization of the distillery and the sugar factory
respectively. The Commissioner of Sugar has in the impugned orders referred
to the gist of the DPR and the balance sheet of the Respondent No.4 Karkhana
which was submitted by it and accorded approval to the expenditure of
Rs.3200.64 lakhs for the modernization of the distillery and for the
expenditure of Rs.3843.66 lakhs for the modernization of the sugar factory. As
indicated above it is the said two orders dated 13-6-2017 and 17-6-2017 which
are taken exception to by way of the above Petition.
7 On behalf of the Respondent No.4, the Learned Senior Counsel Mr.
A. V. Anturkar took a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the above
Petition on the ground of the availability of an alternate remedy by way of the
Revision under Section 154 of the MCS Act. According to the Learned Senior
Counsel, the impugned orders are passed in a "proceeding" and would
therefore be covered by Section 154 of the MCS Act. Reliance is placed by the
Learned Senior Counsel on the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the matter
of Shireen Sami Gadiali & Anr Vs. Spenta Co-op Hsg Soc Ltd, 1 in support of
1 2011(3) Mh. L.J. 486
mmj 8 of 21
wp-9185-17(reserved)
the said contention.
8 Per contra, the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
Petitioners Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar would contend that the orders passed by the
Commissioner of Sugar are not under any of the provisions of the MCS Act and
therefore the remedy by way of an Revision under Section 154 is not available.
The Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that since the Petitioners
are alleging breach of the principles of natural justice in as much as the
Petitioners not being heard, they are entitled to invoke the Writ Jurisdiction of
this Court. The Learned Senior Counsel would further contend that the
impugned orders have been passed by the Commissioner of Sugar by not
following the mandate of the orders passed by this Court in the said PIL No.
20 of 2006. In so far as the preliminary objection is concerned, the Learned
Senior Counsel would contend that in view of the endorsement made by the
Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation on the applications made by the Respondent
No.4 to the effect that the said applications be considered, it would be an
exercise in futility to approach the State Government in Revision.
9 On merits it was the submission of the Learned Senior Counsel Mr.
Jahagirdar that the orders passed by the Commissioner of Sugar are not
speaking orders and do not reflect the consideration by the Commissioner of
the Health Certificate and the DPR. It was the submission of the Learned
mmj 9 of 21
wp-9185-17(reserved)
Senior Counsel that the circulars issued by the State Government have not
been followed. It was also the submission of the Learned Senior Counsel that
the Respondent No.4 has projected its financial position by reflecting the
pledged amount which is lying with it. The Learned Senior Counsel would
contend that inspite of there being a shortage of molasses to the extent of
10,000 tonnes, the financial and administrative approval has been granted by
the Commissioner of Sugar. The Learned Senior Counsel would therefore
contend that the impugned orders are required to be interfered with in the
Writ Jurisdiction of this Court.
10 Per contra it was the submission of Mr. Anturkar the Learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4, that the Respondent No.4
has followed the procedure prescribed for submission of its proposal for
modernization of its distillery and sugar factory. The Learned Senior Counsel
drew this courts attentions to the fact that the proposal was routed by the
Respondent No.4 through the Regional Director of Sugar. It was the
submission of the Learned Senior Counsel that whilst considering the
applications filed by the Respondent No.4 for according financial and
administrative approval, it was not necessary to hear the Petitioners as what
was contemplated by the order passed by the Division Bench dated 11-4-2017
was to consider the applications filed by the sugar factories for permissions
and not the applications filed by other parties objecting to the applications.
mmj 10 of 21
wp-9185-17(reserved)
The Learned Senior Counsel would submit that assuming that the circulars
issued by the State Government were not followed in letter and spirit, the
interference of this Court in its Writ Jurisdiction is not warranted. Reliance is
placed on the following judgments of the Apex Court in the matter of R.
Abdulla Rowther Vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Madras &
Ors.2 and in the matter of Kumari Regina Vs. St. Aloysius Higher
Elementary School & Anr.3
11 The Learned Senior Counsel would next contend that there is a
close proximity between the filing of the application and the submission of the
DPR by the VIS as the Respondent No.4 had after making the application had
concurrently started the process for obtaining the DPR from the VIS. The
Learned Senior Counsel would contend that the apprehension of the
Petitioners are misfounded as the Respondent No.4 has not applied for any
Government assistance but has arranged finance from the NCDC. The Learned
Senior Counsel would lastly contend that the Respondent No.4 has already
dismantled the old machinery for facilitating the modernization and has
placed orders for machinery worth Rs.21.62 crores and also paid an amount of
Rs.17 crores for harvesting and transportation of the sugarcane for the ensuing
crushing season. It is therefore imperative that the work of modernization is
completed before the crushing season commences towards the end of the year.
2 AIR 1959 Supreme Court 896(V 46 C 125)
3 (1972) 4 Supreme Court Cases 188
mmj 11 of 21
wp-9185-17(reserved)
12 Having heard the Learned Senior Counsel for the parties, the issue
which is required to be addressed at the outset, is the issue of whether the
Petitioners are required to be relegated to the remedy by way of a Revision
under Section 154 of the MCS Act. The impugned orders dated 13-6-2017 and
17-6-2017 as indicated above passed by the Commissioner of Sugar accord
financial and administrative approval submitted by the Respondent No.4 for
modernization of the distillery and sugar factory. The said orders have been
passed by the Commissioner of Sugar as the application filed by the
Respondent No.4 was relegated to him by the order dated 11-4-2017 passed
by the Division Bench of this Court in the said PIL No.20 of 2006. The
application filed for modernization of a sugar factory is not referable to any
provision of the MCS Act. In so far as the proceeding under Section 154 is
concerned, it can be filed against an order passed in any proceeding under the
MCS Act. We are unable to accept the contention of the Learned Senior
Counsel Mr. Anturkar that the application made by the Respondent No.4 for
modernization would be a proceeding within the meaning of Section 154. The
word proceeding would have to take its colour from the word inquiry
appearing in the said provision by applying the principal of ejusdem generis.
13 In so far as the exercise of power by the State Government under
the said provision i.e. Section 154 is concerned an exception is carved out
mmj 12 of 21
wp-9185-17(reserved)
namely that the inquiry or proceeding referred to in sub Section (9) of Section
149 are excluded from the provision of Section 149. Implicit in the said fact is
the fact that the inquiry or proceeding contemplated in Section 154 has to be
under the said MCS Act. In the instant case the application filed by the
Respondent No.4 for modernization is not ascribable to any provision of the
said MCS Act.
14 Though there can be said to be a thin line separating a quasi
judicial order from an administrative order, in our view since in passing the
order granting financial and administrative approval, no lis is decided by the
Commissioner of Sugar, the impugned orders partakes the character of
administrative order and therefore the remedy by way of a Revision under
Section 154 cannot be resorted to. Having reached the aforesaid conclusion
and though it is not necessary for us to deal with the other contentions urged
by the Learned Senior Counsel in support of the maintainability of the above
Petition, we deem it appropriate to deal with the said contentions also. In so
far as the contention of the breach of the principles of natural justice are
concerned. As indicated above, the Division Bench by its order dated 11-4-
2017 directed the consideration of the application filed by the Respondent
No.4 for modernization though Civil Applications filed by the Petitioners
objecting to the Civil Application filed by the Respondent No.4 were also listed
before the Division Bench, the order of the Division Bench cannot be construed
mmj 13 of 21
wp-9185-17(reserved)
to mean that the Petitioners were required to be heard by the Commissioner of
Sugar. Hence apart from the fact that the orders passed on the application
filed by the Respondent No.4 are administrative orders and no lis between the
parties was to be decided, the contention of the Petitioners if accepted, would
give rise to a new jurisprudence were even in respect of administrative orders
the objections would have to be considered and dealt with by the concerned
Authority. Hence we do not find any infirmity in the orders on the grounds of
violation of principles of natural justice. In so far as the endorsement on the
application made by the Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation is concerned, as
indicated above the said endorsement directs the proposal to be put up
expeditiously. In our view, the said endorsement has the effect of creating a
reasonable apprehension in the Petitioners that approaching the State
Government would be futile when the Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation who
is in charge of the Department concerned has made an endorsement. Having
regard to the dictum that justice should not only be done but should also be
seen to have been done, we hold that the above Petition is maintainable.
The judgment of the Full Bench in Spenta Co-operative Societies
case (supra) holds that after the amendment in the year 1974 to Section 154 a
remedy by way of a revision is available to an aggrieved party as a matter of
right. However, the Full Bench has observed that no general rule where it will
always operate as an alternate remedy can be laid down. The question will
have to be considered in the facts of each case. As indicated above having
mmj 14 of 21
wp-9185-17(reserved)
regard to the facts of the present case, the remedy by way of a Revision cannot
be an alternate remedy to which the Petitioners can be relegated.
15 Now coming to the aspect of the violation of the circulars issued
by the State Government. In so far as the said circulars are concerned, the
circular dated 30-8-2003 provides for the manner in which the DPR is required
to be prepared. In so far as the circular dated 9-4-2009 is concerned, it
provides for the proposal seeking various permissions by the sugar factories to
be routed through the Regional Director of Sugar and in so far as circular
dated 23-12-2009 is concerned, it provides for the documents which are to be
annexed to the proposals. Based on the circular dated 23-12-2009 it was the
submission of the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that
the said circular stipulates the priorities in which the documents mentioned
therein are to be obtained and it is only after obtaining all the documents that
the proposal can be submitted. We are unable to accept the said submission of
the Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, the said
circular dated 23-12-2009 only provides for the documents which are required
to be submitted along with the proposal, reading of the circular in the manner
suggested by the Learned Senior Counsel would be a misreading of the said
circular. As indicated above, it is the case of the Respondent No.4 that whilst it
submitted its proposal for modernization, it simultaneously applied for the
DPR to the VIS and the DPR was before the Commissioner of Sugar before he
mmj 15 of 21
wp-9185-17(reserved)
took a decision on the proposal of the Respondent No.4. It is not the case of
the Petitioners that the Respondent No.4 did not submit the documents as
contemplated in the circular dated 23-12-2009. If that be so, the order cannot
be said to be vitiated on the ground that the proposal was not submitted after
obtaining the Health Certificate and the DPR. There can also be no dispute
about the fact that the proposal was routed through the Regional Director of
Sugar who forwarded the same to the Commissioner of Sugar with his
remarks. The Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 had
brought for our perusal the proposal submitted through the Regional Director
of Sugar. In our view, therefore, the orders do not suffer from any infirmity or
illegality on account of the alleged non compliance of the circulars.
16 At this stage, a useful reference could be made to the judgments
cited by the Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 in R.
Abdulla Rowther's case (supra) the facts were that Section 43A of the Motor
Vehicles Act entitled the State Government to issue administrative or executive
orders which were not required to be published and not even to be made
known to the persons applying for permissions. The said administrative
instructions were issued for the information and guidance of the authorities
issuing the permits. The said instructions are not in the nature of statutory
rules having the force of law. The Apex Court held in the said case that their
breach even if patent could not justify the issue of Writ of Certiorari.
mmj 16 of 21
wp-9185-17(reserved)
17 In Kumari Regina's case (supra) the Government had framed rules
for the grant of recognition and aid to the schools under the Madras
Elementary Education Act, 1920. The said rules were in the form of
administrative instructions. If such rules were to laid down the Government
can insist that satisfaction of such conditions would entail the denial of
withdrawal of recognition or aid. The rule thus governing the terms which the
Government would grant recognition and aid the Government can therefore
enforce those rules upon the management. The Apex Court held that the
enforcement of such rules is a matter between the Government and the
management and a third party, such as a teacher aggrieved by some order of
the management cannot derive from the rules any enforceable right against
the management on the ground of breach or not compliance of any of the
rules.
18 In our view, the judgments supra support the case of the
Respondent No.4 that even if there is some infraction of the circulars, the same
does not create any enforceable right in favour of the Petitioners for the Writ
Jurisdiction of this court to be exercised.
19 As regards the aspect of the violation of the principles of natural
justice on the ground that the Petitioners were not heard, we have already
mmj 17 of 21
wp-9185-17(reserved)
dealt with the said issue whilst dealing with the preliminary objection. To
further elaborate on the said issue, the right to a hearing is claimed on the
basis of the order dated 11-4-2017 passed by the Division Bench in the said PIL
No.20 of 2006. It is required to be noted that the Civil Application filed by
the Respondent No.4 was seeking permission from this Court for
modernization of its distillery and sugar factory. The said Civil Application
filed by the Petitioners as indicated above was listed along with the Civil
Applications filed by the other sugar factories. The Civil Applications filed by
the Petitioners were objecting to such permission being granted by the Division
Bench. The Division bench did not deem it appropriate to consider the Civil
Applications for modernization and directed the Commissioner of Sugar to do
so who is undoubtedly the authority vested with the said power. Hence what
was to be considered by the Commissioner of Sugar was the application of the
Respondent No.4 for modernization. The said order passed by the Division
Bench therefore cannot be interpreted to mean that all the parties were
required to be heard and thereafter the Commissioner of Sugar was to pass a
reasoned order. It would have to be borne in mind that the approval to be
granted by the Commissioner of Sugar is the financial and administrative
approval to the modernization of the Respondent No.4. The Commissioner of
Sugar was therefore was not deciding any lis between the parties. The order
passed by the Commissioner of Sugar therefore partakes the character of an
administrative order and therefore though there is a thin line separating an
mmj 18 of 21
wp-9185-17(reserved)
administrative order from a quasi judicial order in the facts of the present case
where the orders passed by the Commissioner of Sugar are not ascribable to
any provision of the MCS Act, we are of the view that the necessity to hear the
Petitioners was obviated.
The issue has to be looked at from one more perspective, the
Respondent No.4 has in its General Body meeting dated 26-9-2016 passed a
Resolution for modernization of its sugar factory and distillery. The Petitioners
have challenged the said Resolution by filing a Dispute under Section 91 being
Dispute Application No.46 of 2017. Hence the Petitioners have invoked the
jurisdiction of a forum where they can ventilate their grievance as regards the
decision taken by the General Body of the Respondent No.4 in respect of
modernization. In our view therefore it is in the said proceedings that the
legality or otherwise of the Resolution passed by the General Body of the
Respondent No.4 would be gone into. The Petitioners therefore cannot be
heard to say that they ought to have been heard by the Commissioner before
granting financial and administrative approval for modernization. We
therefore do not find that there is any violation of the principles of natural
justice in so far as the orders passed by the Commissioner of Sugar are
concerned.
20 It is required to be noted that in the Dispute filed by the
mmj 19 of 21
wp-9185-17(reserved)
Petitioners being No.46 of 2017, the Petitioners had filed an application for
interim reliefs i.e. to stay the effect and implementation of the said
Resolution. The said Application filed by the Petitioners was rejected by the
Co-operative Court. It is thereafter that the instant Petition has been moved by
the Petitioners. The Respondent No.4 has placed on affidavit the events which
have taken place after the financial and administrative approval was granted
by the Commissioner of Sugar. It has been averred in the said affidavit that an
amount of Rs.17 crores for harvesting and transportation of sugarcane for the
ensuing crushing season has been expended. The factum that the old
machinery upto 80% being dismantled and an amount of Rs.21.62 crores
being disbursed upto 30th August 2017 towards the purchase of machinery has
come on record. The said purchase has been made by calling for tenders. The
tenders received were submitted to the State Level Purchase Committee which
has approved the purchase. The crushing season for the year 2017 would
begin towards the year end and hence it is imperative that the work of
modernization is completed at the earliest. It is also required to be noted that
the Respondent No.4 has not taken any financial assistance from the State
Government and has taken loan from the NCDC. Hence the apprehension of
the Petitioners on the ground that the finance is being taken from the State
Government is assuaged. The fact that the Resolution was passed by the
General Body unanimously and the Managing Committee by a majority is also
to be taken into consideration whilst adjudicating upon the above Petition. It
mmj 20 of 21
wp-9185-17(reserved)
is also required to be borne in mind that the Petitioners appear to be a
minority group which is opposing the modernization of the sugar factory and
distillery.
21 Hence for the reasons aforestated, we do not deem it appropriate
to interdict with the decision taken by the Commissioner of Sugar vide the
impugned orders dated 13-6-2017 and 17-6-2017, in our Writ Jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Writ Petition is accordingly
dismissed. Rule discharged, with parties to bear their respective costs.
[SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J] [R.M.SAVANT, J]
mmj 21 of 21
