Disposed

Gangabhishan Kashinath Thaware v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC25 Jun 2019PIL/72/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner approached the court regarding the non-payment of the Fair Remunerative Price (FRP) to sugarcane growers by a sugar factory. The Commissioner of Sugar had already passed an order treating the default as land revenue arrears. This court directed the Commissioner to expeditiously implement the order to ensure recovery reaches its logical end.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to respondent No. 3/Commissioner of Sugar to take steps expeditiously to implement the order passed on 31.01.2019 regarding recovery of FRP price.

Gangabhishan Kashinath Thaware Vs the State of… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

910PIL72.19

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

910 PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 72 OF 2019

¶5

GANGABHISHAN KASHINATH THAWARE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Choudhary and Mr. B.R. Sable. GP for State : Mr. A.B. Girase.

¶7

CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE & R. G. AVACHAT, JJ. Dated : 25.06.2019

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

Heard Mr. Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner with learned counsel Mr. B.R. Sable. Issue raised in the present Public Interest Litigation is of non payment of a FRP price to the sugarcane growers supplying their sugar to the respondent No. 6/ Sugar Factory, respondent No. 7/ Sugar Factory and respondent No. 8/ Sugar Production Limited Unit.

¶10

Mr. Choudhary, the learned counsel invited our attention to the copy of the representation submitted to the respondent authorities namely respondent No. 4/ Regional Joint Director of Sugar as well as to the Executive Directors/The Managers of these respective sugar factories. Perusal of the representation submitted to respondent No. 4 shows that it is the grievance of these sugarcane growers that the sugarcane was supplied to the factories some time in

¶11

¶12

910PIL72.19

¶13

the year 2018, though the factories were duty bound to release the amount of the sugarcane within a fortnight as per the provisions of sugarcane control order. In spite of repeated request no amount was released in favour of the sugar cane growers.

¶14

The perusal of document placed on record further shows that the respondent No. 3/Commissioner of Sugar who was apprised of the grievance of the sugarcane growers, immediately issued notices to the respondent factories calling upon the respondent factories for the hearing scheduled before him on 24.01.19.

¶15

The petitioner has placed on record the copy of the order passed by the respondent No. 3/Commissioner of Sugar. The Commissioner of Sugar in his detailed order arrived at conclusion that the sugar factory namely Loknete Sundarraoji Salunke Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited, Sundarnagar, Taluka Dharur, District Beed, committed default in payment of a FRP price to the tune of Rs. 16,13,19,000/-. The Commissioner of Sugar then passed the order stating that this amount of FRP price be recovered treating as the land revenue arrears along with interest at the rate of 15 %. The Commissioner of Sugar, further, made it clear that the necessary steps can be taken for recovery of the amount including putting the property of the sugar factory to auction and the Commissioner of

¶16

¶17

910PIL72.19

¶18

Sugar authorized Collector, Beed, as the competent authority to take appropriate action in view of the order passed by respondent No. 3/The Commissioner of Sugar.

¶19

We are of the opinion that the grievance of the petitioner was addressed to immediately and also an order is passed by the Commissioner of Sugar. Now it is only grievance of the petitioner that though the order of the Commissioner is passed on 30.01.2019. There is no further progress in the matter.

¶20

At this stage, we see no reason to arrive at a conclusion that the competent authority that is respondent No. 4 is making any inordinate delay in the matter. At the cost of repetition we state that the Commissioner of Sugar, promptly acted in the matter and passed the order on 30.01.2019, and considering this very fact we are of the opinion that the order of 31.01.2019 and it is possible that there may be some administrative difficulty.

¶21

Considering these facts we are of the opinion that the petition can be disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 3/Commissioner of Sugar to take steps expeditiously so as to order passed by him dated 31.01.2019, reaches to its logical end.

¶22

¶23

910PIL72.19

¶24

We are also of the opinion that our observation and direction to the respondent No. 3/Commissioner of Sugar would serve the interest of justice and cause no prejudice to either of the parties.

¶25

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with above referred directions.

¶26

( R.G. AVACHAT, J. )

¶27

( PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. )

¶28

S.P.C.

Gangabhishan Kashinath Thaware v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gangabhishan Kashinath Thaware 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

Ajit Shantaram Mahadik Vs Maharashtra Housing Development Authority (Mhada) and 4 Ors.

Sudhir Pralhad Barge Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sajid Usman Batliwala Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr Shivaji Shringrao Bhise and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri. Devendra S/O Sureshrao Wankhede Vs State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and 3 Others

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Education, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Vijay S/O Mahesh Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Department of Secondary Education, Nagpur and Others

Courts on Its Own Motion Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary, Education and Sports Department, Mumbai and Others

Dr Shivaji Shringrao Bhise and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Samir Sayabu Tadvi Vs the State of Maharashtra Ashok Vitthalrao Jadhav and Others

Govind Sopan Girme and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Mudrikabi Dashrath Mane and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shriniwas Nampeli Andhelwar Vs Arun Dongre the District Collector Nanded

Maibu Mahebu Gulzar Tadvi L.Rs. Bismilla S/O Maibu Alias Maibu Tadvi and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others