Disposed

Shrirang Kisan Kardile and Others v. the Government of India and Others

Bombay HC16 Sept 2021WP/3806/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition seeking direction for recovery of sugarcane payment from private respondents was dismissed. The High Court refused to exercise Article 226 jurisdiction for disputed amounts and permitted the petitioners to approach the Sugar Commissioner.

What did the court decide?

Permission granted to tender representation to Respondent No.4 under the 2013 Act; Writ Petition disposed off.

Shrirang Kisan Kardile and Others Vs the Government… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

910wp3806o20

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3806 OF 2020

¶5

SHRIRANG KISAN KARDILE AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶6

THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for the Petitioners : Shri Shekade Shashikant E. AGP for Respondents 2 to 5 : Shri P.G. Borade

¶8

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

¶9

S.G. MEHARE, JJ.

¶10

DATE :- 16^th September, 2021

¶11

Per Court :-

¶12

By this petition, the petitioners have put forth prayer

¶13

clause B, which reads thus:-

¶14

“B) Issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order against Respondents that respondent to make payment of Rs.29,99,625.04/- as stated in Para 3(viii) of this writ petition, to the petitioner within 14 days from the date order of the Hon’ble Court, along with 12% p.a. further interest from date of supply of sugarcane thereon till realization of entire total amount.”

¶15

By filing this petition, the petitioners pray for invoking our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to satisfy the above prayer. It is sad state of

¶16

2 910wp3806o20

¶17

affairs that extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is practically being misutilized even in the matters of causing recovery of amounts, which are to be paid by private entities like respondent Nos.6 and 7 arrayed in this petition. In these circumstances, we refuse to exercise our jurisdiction as Article 226 cannot be utilized for recovery of disputed amounts.

¶18

The learned advocate for the petitioners submits that at least respondent No.4/ Sugar Commissioner, Government of Maharashtra, may be directed to consider the grievance of the petitioners under the Maharashtra Regulation of Sugarcane Price (Supplied to Factories) Act, 2013 since the payments for supplying sugarcane have to be made by the Sugar Factories within 14 days from the receiving supply of sugarcane and failure would entail the consequences flowing from the powers vested in respondent No.4.

¶19

We find that the petitioners have issued legal notices to respondent Nos.4 and 5. No proceedings have been initiated before them, inasmuch as, the petitioners have not approached them for seeking directions against respondent Nos.6 and 7.

¶20

In view of the above, this Writ Petition is disposed off. We permit the petitioners to tender a representation to

¶21

3 910wp3806o20 respondent No.4 and pray for initiating steps as may be prescribed under the 2013 Act.

¶22

kps (S.G. MEHARE, J.) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

Shrirang Kisan Kardile and Others v. the Government of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shrirang Kisan Kardile and Others v. the Government of India 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

Gulabbee Syed Pasha Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Santosh Rangnath Kakde and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gutam Bhagwan Sonawane Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Eknath Bhivsen Gorade and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ritika Harish Oberoi and Others Vs the Union of India and Others

Sneha Santosh Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others