Remanded

Bhimashankar Sugar Mills Ltd. through Its Executive Director Nitin Satish Lodha v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Aug 2016WP/9095/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging an order directing payment of Fair Remunerative Price. The Court held that Company premium and other disputes require factual investigation and cannot be conclusively decided without hearing, quashing the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the order passed by the Commissioner of Sugar on 11.8.2016 and directed the concerned authority to extend the opportunity of hearing to all parties and investigate factual aspects of FRP payme

Bhimashankar Sugar Mills Ltd. through Its… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

wp 9095.16.odt

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.9095 OF 2016

¶5

Bhimashankar Sugar Mills Ltd., Vasant Nagar, Pargaon, Taluka – Washi, District – Osmanabad through its Executive Director Mr. Nitin Satish Lodha age: major, occu: business, R/o As above Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1 State of Maharashtra, Through the Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State, Sahkar Sankul, Shivaji Nagar Pune

¶8

2 The Collector, Osmanabad, District – Osmanabad

¶9

3 Regional Joint Director (Sugar) Nanded, District – Nanded

¶10

4 Special Auditor, Class – I Co-operative Societies (Sugar) Osmanabad, District – Osmanabad

¶11

5 Pralhad Ramaji Ingole, age: 37 years, occu: agriculture District President of Swabhimani Shetkari Sanghatana R/o Majalgaon, Tq. Ardhapur, Dist. Nanded Respondents

¶12

Mr.Mukul Kulkarni h/f Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.G. Karlekar, Assistant Govt. Pleader for Respondents No.1 to 4 Mr. R.A. Deshmukh, advocate for respondent No.5

wp 9095.16.odt

{2}

CORAM : R.M. BORDE &

K.K. SONAWANE, JJ

(Date : 25th August, 2016 .)

¶18

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶19

(Per: R.M. Borde, J)

¶20

1 Heard respective counsel for the parties.

¶21

2 Rule. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final decision at admission sage.

¶22

3 The petitioner is objecting to the order passed by the Commissioner of Sugar on 11.8.2016, directing payment of Rs.227.72 lakhs towards Fair & Remunerative Price (FRP) payable by the petitioner processing society. According to the petitioners, on earlier occasion, the petitioner had approached this Court by presenting Writ Petition No.11701/2015, seeking directions against the bank and seeking some time to pay the amount of Fair & Remunerative Price (FRP) which remained unpaid during the year 2014-15. This Court, while disposing of the writ petition, accepted the proposal of the petitioner to make payment of Rs.67,58,000/- towards the balance FRP, during 2014-2015 and granted two months time for complying with the directions in

¶23

{3} wp 9095.16.odt

¶24

respect of payment of the aforesaid amount.

¶25

4 According to the petitioner, the amount as undertaken by the petitioner before this Court, has been paid to the agriculturists and there are no dues towards the petitioner society in respect of payment of FRP to the agriculturists. It is contended that, the Director of Sugar heard the matter in the month of March, 2016 and thereafter no opportunity of hearing was extended. The petitioner could not point out the developments those have taken place after March, 2016 and place on record the relevant material before the Commissioner of Sugar to demonstrate payment of amount by the petitioner society towards FRP payable to the agriculturists.

¶26

5 It is not a matter of dispute that, the Commissioner of Sugar extended hearing to the parties in the month of March, 2016 and reserved the matter for passing orders and the orders were actually declared on 11.8.2016.

¶27

6 Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents contends that, the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts and that the balance amount of FRP payable by the petitioner society, as pointed out to the High Court in earlier Writ Petition, is an incorrect figure and much more amount is payable

¶28

{4}

¶29

wp 9095.16.odt

¶30

by the petitioner society.

¶31

7 The questions which need factual investigation need not be gone into, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It would be open for the Commissioner of Sugar to investigate into factual aspects and pass appropriate order, after extending opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. We therefore, quash and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Sugar on 11.8.2016 and direct the concerned authority to extend the opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and after investigating into the factual aspect, pass appropriate order, in accordance with law. This exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶32

8 Rule is made absolute to the extent specified above.

¶33

9 There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

(K.K. SONAWANE, J) (R.M.BORDE, J)

¶35

vbd

Bhimashankar Sugar Mills Ltd. through Its Executive Director Nitin Satish Lodha v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhimashankar Sugar Mills Ltd. through Its Executive Director Nitin Satish Lodha 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

Sangappa Sidramppa Dhumare and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Arun Trimbakrao Tawar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mansuri Rizwan Supdu and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Santosh Baban Khandve and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Maharashtra Vs Abdul Sajid Abdul Gaffar and Others

Vishnubhaiya Khodvekar Yuva Pratisthan through Its President Manoj Shivajirao Dongre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others