Partly allowed

Gangamai Industries and Constructions Limited through Vice President Ambadas Laxman More v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Mar 2011WP/2009/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In WP 2009 of 2010, the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad quashed a recovery order issued against the petitioner for alleged arrears of sugarcane payment. The court held the order was unreasoned and required fresh adjudication by a competent authority.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 30.11.2009 quashed; petitioner to appear before respondent no.2 on 5.4.2011 for fresh hearing; reasoned order to pass by 31.5.2011.

Gangamai Industries and Constructions… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

(1) WP 2009.2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2009 OF 2010

¶4

Gangamai Industries & Constructions
Ltd., Aurangabad through its Vice
President PETITIONER

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS

¶7

.....

¶8

Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State.

¶9

.....

¶10

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
 DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2011

¶11

ORAL ORDER:-

¶12

1.Heard Advocate Patil for the petitioner and
learned A.G.P. for the respondents.

¶13

2.By placing reliance upon the show-cause
notice dated 16.7.2008 served upon petitioner as per
Section 3 of the Sugarcane (Regulation) Order, 1966,

¶14

Shri Patil points out that even bare perusal thereof
is sufficient to prove that petitioner had paid

¶15

amount of Rs.85,56,450/- to the sugarcane
cultivators. He therefore challenges the impugned
communication dated 30.11.2009 holding that sugarcane

¶16

(2) WP 2009.2010

¶17

cultivators are entitled to amount of Rs.560/- per
Metric Ton more and, therefore, directed recovery of
amount of Rs.1,43,14,000/- from petitioner-sugar
factory as arrears of land revenue under the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. He states that order
is not only without jurisdiction but also perverse
inasmuch as because payment made has not been looked
into and the basis for arriving at the figure of
Rs. 560/- per Metric Ton is not apparent in the
order. He has urged that the Commissioner for Sugar

¶18

and Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies are
not authorised to pass this order.

¶19

3.Learned A.G.P. points out that orders have
been passed after extending opportunity of hearing
and and at that time no objection was raised as
regards jurisdiction. Reliance is being placed on

¶20

the facts disclosed in paragraph 5 and 6 of the reply

¶21

affidavit sworn by Regional Joint Director of
Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. Learned A.G.P. states

¶22

that the petitioner has not paid proper price to the
sugarcane growers and hence the amount has been
correctly worked out.

¶23

(3) WP 2009.2010

¶24

4.Perusal of affidavit as filed reveals that
after considering the declared statutory miminum
price of Rs.910.80 per Metric Ton and after deducting
amount of Rs.439.75 per Metric Ton as expenditure for
harvesting and transportation, net payable price per
Metric Ton worked out is Rs.472.05. However, how
this has been increased to Rs.560/- per M.T. is not
clear. Similarly, when show cause notice itself
recorded more payment, why the factory is found to
have effected such less payment to sugarcane growers
is also nowhere apparent. In other words, the
impugned order does not contain necessary reasons to
show application of mind and to enable this Court to
understand how entitlement of each sugarcane grower
has been worked out. The order therefore cannot be
said to be a reasoned order.

¶25

5.The learned A.G.P. has requested for grant
of adjournment to enable her to find out how the
figure of Rs.560/- per Metric Ton has been arrived at
in impugned notice. However, the disclosure of said
facts to this Court will not be sufficient as the
impugned order itself has to demonstrate application

¶26

(4) WP 2009.2010

¶27

of mind to relevant facts in that respect and then to
support said figure in the course of reasoning. As
that thought process is not available on record,
grant of time to learned A.G.P. will not be helpful,
hence that request has been rejected. Impugned order
dated 30.11.2009 is therefore quashed and set aside.
Petitioner is directed to appear before the
respondent no.2 on 5.4.2011 and the said respondent

¶28

shall then proceed to hear the petitioner in the
matter afresh in the light of observations made by

¶29

this Court. Objection of petitioner to the

¶30

competency of respondent no.2 to take cognizance of
such dispute is kept open and petitioner can point
out absence of jurisdiction/delegation to that
authority.

¶31

6.After hearing petitioner, respondent no.2

¶32

shall pass a reasoned and self-sustaining order as

¶33

early as possible and in any case by 31st May, 2011.
Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. No
costs.

¶34

 [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.]

¶35

arp

Gangamai Industries and Constructions Limited through Vice President Ambadas Laxman More v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangamai Industries and Constructions Limited through Vice President Ambadas Laxman More v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Santosh Laxman Pawar Vs Shri Wadji Vidya Shikshan Prasarakl Mandal Hargadwadi Dist Beed through Secretary and Ors.

Limbaji Gema Jadhav Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Piraji Deoba Jadhav Th Gpa Piraji Nagorao Gaikwad Vs Rohit Sangamnath Mandharne and Anr.

Jijabai Nana Pagore Vs Rajendrakumar Madanlal Kala and Ors.

Upendra Gunwantrao Muley Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dwarkadas Ramchandra Mandhane Vs Ramlal Mansingh Gawli (Choudhary), Thr. L.Rs. Ajudyabai Ramlal Gawli and Ors.