Dinkar Rangnath Pandarkar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC2 Mar 2016CA/1964/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court modified an earlier order directing a Karkhana to harvest sugar cane for the current year, emphasizing compliance with an order from the Regional Assistant Director (Sugar). Both review applications were disposed of without costs due to the impending end of the crushing season.

What did the court decide?

The Karkhana is directed to harvest sugar cane in accordance with the order dated 17.11.2015 passed by the Regional Assistant Director (Sugar), Ahmednagar, for the current year only. Review applicatio

Dinkar Rangnath Pandarkar and Others Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 ra 42.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 42 OF 2016 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 OF 2015

¶5

Kukadi Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Through Its Chairman .. Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶8

Shri Nitin V. Gaware, Advocate for the Applicant. Shri A. P. Basarkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri Amol K. Gawali, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

¶9

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1964 OF 2016 IN

¶10

REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO. 5237 OF 2016 WITH

¶11

REVIEW APPLICATION ST. NO. 5237 OF 2016 IN

¶12

WRIT PETITION NO. 6285 OF 2015

¶13

Dinkar Rangnath Pandarkar and others .. Applicants

¶14

Versus

¶15

The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents

¶16

Shri Amol K. Gawali, Advocate for Applicants. Shri A. P. Basarkar, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Shri Niteen V. Gaware, Advocate for the Respondent No. 4.

¶17

2 ra 42.16

¶18

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND A. M. BADAR, JJ. DATE : 02ND MARCH, 2016.

¶19

PER COURT :

¶20

. We have heard both the review applications. The delay in filing review application on the part of original writ petitioners is condoned for the reasons stated in the application.

¶21

Review Application No. 42 of 2016 is filed by the original respondent/Karkhana seeking review of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 6285 of 2015 dated 13.01.2016 to the extent of para 6 of the said order.

¶22

Review Application Stamp No. 5237 of 2016 is filed by original writ petitioners on the count that, when the matter was heard, the original writ petitioner No. 1 who appeared in person could not properly assist the Court in as much as he intended to say that, the petitioner No. 1's sugar cane be harvested and not of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. However, in the order it is recorded that the sugar cane of the petitioners is harvested.

¶23

Mr. Gaware, the learned counsel for the original respondent/karkhana submits that, the sugar cane of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is not recorded with the karkhana. The petitioner No. 2 is member of Shrigonda Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana. The

¶24

3 ra 42.16

¶25

petitioner No. 3 is also member of said Karkhana. The petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are not members of the Kukadi Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. As such present applicant/karkhana is not under obligation to harvest the sugar cane of original writ petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. The learned counsel relies on the relevant clauses of bye laws for the said purpose. The learned counsel further submits that, with a view that financial loss should not be caused to those persons, the Karkhana is still ready to harvest the sugar cane standing in the name of the petitioner No. 3 in the name of the petitioner No. 1. In fact, these petitioners have supplied major sugar cane to Shrigonda Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana. No loss would be caused to them. The Shrigonda sugar factory is still running. The original writ petitioners have not recorded their sugar cane to the respondent/karkhana. The respondent/Karkhana had filed an application seeking certain information from Shrigonda Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana. The original writ petitioners had directed the said Karkhana not to give the said information. The conduct of the original writ petitioners is not bonafide. Thus with an oblique motive, the original writ petitioners are prosecuting the matter and insisting for harvesting the sugar cane by the present karkhana. Present karkhana has harvested entire sugar cane of the petitioner No. 1.

¶26

Mr. Gawali, the learned counsel for the original writ petitioners submits that, the petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 had also

¶27

4 ra 42.16

¶28

filed an application with the present karkhan for recording sugar cane, however, acknowledgment was not given to them, though there is an endorsement on the said application of having received the same. The learned counsel submits that, even the Regional Assistant Director (Sugar) Ahmednagar vide letter dated 17.11.2015 had directed present karkhana to inspect the sugar cane and take steps for harvesting, however the respondent/karkahana has flouted the said order also. According to the learned counsel, the original writ petitioner No. 1 appeared in person and could not understand the query put forth by this Court and under misconception had stated that, entire sugar cane is harvested. It was only sugar cane of the petitioner No. 1 that is harvested. According to the learned counsel even public notice is issued by the Karkhana on 25th February 2016 thereby notifying that the sugar cane which is recorded/unrecorded of the members/non members would be harvested.

¶29

We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties. At the outset, we cannot resist to record that conduct of both the parties is improper.

¶30

When the original writ petition was prosecuted, the original writ petitioner No. 1 who appeared in person was asked, if he requires any legal assistance, to which he denied and now

¶31

5 ra 42.16

¶32

review is filed on the ground that the original writ petitioner was under misconception. By the adamant attitude of the original petitioner No. 1, the time of the Court is wasted.

¶33

It appears that, more than legal issues, the parties are litigating for other reasons. When query was made at the time of hearing the writ petition, both the parties had made submission that, the sugar cane for the current year of petitioners has been harvested. None of the party pointed out at that time that the sugar cane of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is not harvested by the present karkhana. The order was passed after recording the consent of both the parties that for the current year sugar cane of the petitioners has been harvested.

¶34

Be that as it may, we can only record that, it's failure of the parties to assist the Court in proper manner. The parties are now in dispute that the sugar cane of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 is not harvested. It is submitted that, the petitioner No. 3 has used sugar cane as fodder in respect of 20R land and only sugar cane of petitioner No. 3 to the extent of 20R land remains and as far as petitioner No. 2 is concerned, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the original writ petitioner No. 2 that, the sugar cane is standing in 40R's of land only and the same was also recorded with the present karkhana.

¶35

6 ra 42.16

¶36

We would certainly not have gone to the factual disputes between the parties as to whether the sugar cane was properly recorded or not. However, there is an order dated 17.11.2015 passed by the Regional Assistant Director (Sugar) Ahmednagar directing the present karkhana to inspect the sugar cane of the original writ petitioners, get itself satisfied about the age of the sugar cane and then take steps for harvesting the same. The said order is not assailed by any party. The parties certainly would be bound by the said order, coupled therewith the karkhana itself has issued public notice on 25.02.2016, which would make it clear that, it is in need of sugar cane. Though much has been argued about the bye-laws and that karkhana take sugar cane of those who are members only and whose sugar cane is recorded, the public notice defies the said statement.

¶37

11. Considering the above, we pass following order.

¶38

The order dated 13.01.2016 in Writ Petition No. 6825 of 2016 is modified to the following extent.

¶39

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.

¶40

7 ra 42.16

¶41

B. This order is limited to harvesting of the sugar cane for the current year only.

¶42

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.

¶43

D. Review applications stand disposed of. So also civil application is disposed of.

¶44

[ A. M. BADAR, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶45

bsb/March 16

Dinkar Rangnath Pandarkar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinkar Rangnath Pandarkar and Others v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Maharashtra Bhaujan Hamal Sangh Udgir through Its Secretary Dhanraj Eaknath Survase Vs Janardhan Sopanrao Patil and Others

Sunanda Nanasaheb Malawade Vs Joll P Dastur and Ors.

Chlorochem Industries, Kota Vs the Secretary Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Sagar Maschya Vyavasaik Sahakari Sanstha through Its President Shaikh Hamid Shaikh Rashid Vs Bharat Ambarsingh Chavan and Others

Pravin Pralhad Bhombe Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Kundlik Bhanudas Bankar (Mali) and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others