A . RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No.7419…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.7419 of 2008 and WRIT PETITION No.3364 of 2009
COMMON ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. These two writ petitions are being disposed of by a common order in view of common issue involved in both the writ petitions.
3. W.P.No.7419 of 2008 was filed by the Sugarcane Growers Association challenging the action of the 3rd respondent in not paying cane price to the suppliers of cane as per the provisions of A.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).
4. Their case is that they have supplied sugarcane to the factories owned by the 3rd respondent in their respective factory zones. But the 3rd respondent did not pay the price for the cane supplied to its factories at Metpally, Shakkar Nagar and Mambojipally from 20.12.2007 onwards. The total arrears calculated came to Rs.1201.46 lakhs, Rs.2141.19 lakhs and 1121.79 lakhs respectively for the period 20.12.2007 to
29.02.2008. The statutory dues payable by the 3rd respondent as on 31.03.2008 was calculated with statutory minimum price of Rs.70.00 crores and it comes to Rs.19.00 crores approximately calculated at the agreed price of Rs.1170/- per Matric Tonne. They state that non-payment of amount is contrary to Section 19 of the Act. The 3rd respondent committed default in payment of amount even though they were under the obligation to pay within 14 days.
5. The 3rd respondent in W.P.No.7419 of 2008 filed W.P.No.3364 of 2009 challenging the Distraint Order dated 16.02.2009 issued under the provisions of A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, distraining the petitioners’ manufacturing unit for non-payment of arrears interest on the delayed cane price by them. It was stated therein that an amount of Rs.1,80,59,665/- was due for the period from 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 crushing season. The case of the petitioners is that without determining the amount pursuant to their reply to the notice issued by the Cane Commissioner on 12.11.2008, the Distraint Order was issued. Even though they have stated in the reply dated 12.11.2008 that they have made additional payment, including interest, incentives and subsidies, the said fact was not taken into consideration before taking of the
proceedings under the A.P. Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. In fact, no enquiry was conducted before determining the outstanding amount of Rs.1,80,59,665/. He relied on an unreported decision of this Court in W.P.No.13934 of 2002 dated 09.06.2003 wherein it was held that the proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act cannot be initiated without quantifying the amount due after proper enquiry.
6. The facts in the above two cases disclose that the Cane Growers Association claimed amounts due from the respondents, whereas the 3rd respondent states that it paid all the amounts due to the cane growers. But these matters have to be decided by the Commissioner of Sugar and Cane and in these writ petitions the said enquiry cannot be taken up.
7. In the circumstances, the Distraint Order dated 16.02.2009 is set aside and the Commissioner & Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner is directed to conduct an enquiry with regard to the arrears claimed by the petitioners in W.P.No.7419 of 2008, including the interest and delayed payments, and the case of the petitioner in W.P.No.3364 of 2009 with regard to the arrears of interest on delayed cane price for the period from 2005-2006 to 2007-2008 within a period of three
months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners in both the writ petitions can advance their arguments and put forth the case in support of their contentions before the Came Commissioner and the Cane Commissioner shall decide the amount payable, if any, by the petitioner in W.P.No.3364 of 2009 and initiate necessary steps in accordance with law for recovery of the said amount.
8. Both the writ petitions are disposed of subject to the above observations. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence. No costs.
________________________________ A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO, J Date: October 29, 2014 BSB
23 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
WRIT PETITION No.7419 of 2008 and WRIT PETITION No.3364 of 2009
Date: October 29, 2014
BSB
Sugarcane Growers Association
3rd Respondent
A. RAMALINGESWARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
