JUDGMENT - KAMAT V.V., J.:---By an interim order dated July 27/30, 1990, this Court1 hearing these two petitions alongwith other petitions has come to a conclusion that in appropriate cases, the High Court has power to grant compensation in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court thereafter, by the order, directed the Director of Sugar to undertake the necessary enquiry into the allegations of the petitioners in the light of the pleadings of the petitions and in the light of the observations made in the said order. 2. This Court directed the Director of Sugar, either himself or by any official, person or agency, authorised by him to investigate and enquire into the allegations made in the writ petitions, after giving opportunity to all the parties to lead evidence, if necessary, and then submit a report before this Court with reference to the following questions:--- "(i) Why the Karkhanas respondents herein had not crushed the sugarcane of the petitioners during the crushing season of 1989-90? (ii) Whether the Karkhanas had prepared a proper harvesting programme for the crushing programme of 1989-90 on the basis of the plantation dates as required by the crushing licence? (iii) Whether the Karkhanas have followed the crushing programme in general and in particular the sequence by which the sugarcane was to be harvested in respect of the petitioners? (iv) Whether the sugarcane of some other growers who had planted the sugarcane later than the petitioners, was harvested earlier to that of the petitioners? (v) If the petitioners' sugarcane or part of it was already harvested and crushed, whether there was undue delay in harvesting and crushing the sugarcane. (vi) Whether the Karkhanas have bypassed the sequence given in the crushing programme and the licence mala fide or on some extraneous considerations? (vii) Whether the Karkhanas on their part had taken efforts to intimate to the petitioners their inability to crush their sugarcane in time i.e. before 15th September or thereafter at the earliest opportunity? (viii) Whether the Karkhanas had any reasonable cause for not harvesting and crushing the sugarcane of the petitioners and whether they are able to prove it? (ix) Whether the rains, non-availability of labour or obstruction by the petitioners to the harvesting of their sugarcane had prevented the cutting and harvesting of the sugarcane of the petitioners as alleged by the Karkhanas in those petitions? (ix) Whether the rains, non-availability of labour or obstruction by the petitioners to the harvesting of their sugarcane had prevented the cutting and harvesting of the sugarcane of the petitioners as alleged by the Karkhanas in those petitions? (x) Whether non-harvesting or late harvesting of the sugarcane of the petitioners has resulted in monetary loss to the petitioners? If yes, what is the approximate extent of such loss? (xi) Whether the loss to the petitioners so calculated is the result of non-observance of any of the rules, conditions prescribed in the reservation order and the crushing? (xii) What is the quantum of amount which the petitioners would receive from the State Government as assistance for non-crushing of their sugarcane by the Karkhanas in terms of the decision of the Government as communicated to this Court through the Government Pleader dated 29th June, 1990? (xiii) What is the further quantum of compensation amount to which the petitioners are entitled?". 3. In pursuance of the said order, the report has been submitted before us through the learned Government Pleader for the State of Maharashtra in these petitions which are taken up for hearing and disposal. 4. In Writ Petition No. 1743 of 1990, we are concerned with three petitioners viz. Eknath Pawar, Sitaram Pawar and Pandurang Pawar. The petitioner No. 1 is concerned with Gut No. 456/Survey No. 41 of Comalwada admeasuring 2 Acres; petitioner No. 2 is concerned with Gut No. 480/Survey No. 45 and Gut No. 717/Survey No. 138 of village Comalwada admeasuring 2 Acres and 30 Gunthas respectively and petitioner No. 3 is concerned with Gut No. 874/Survey No. 139 and Gut No. 463/Survey No. 44 of village Comalwada admeasuring 2 Acres and 20 Gunthas respectively. These three petitioners have claimed compensation for the loss and damages sustained by them as a result of non-crushing of sugarcane by their sugar factory-respondent-Kada Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kada, Taluqa Ashti, District Beed. 5. In Writ Petition No. 2063 of 1990, we are concerned with two petitioners viz. Zumber Zanje and Bhaskar Zanje. Petitioner No. 1 is concerned with the land Survey No. 71 admeasuring 1 Hectare and 20 Acres for sugarcane cultivation out of his share of 6 Acres. Petitioner No. 2 is also concerned with the land admeasuring 1 Acre out of his share of 6 Acres for sugarcane cultivation. Zumber Zanje and Bhaskar Zanje. Petitioner No. 1 is concerned with the land Survey No. 71 admeasuring 1 Hectare and 20 Acres for sugarcane cultivation out of his share of 6 Acres. Petitioner No. 2 is also concerned with the land admeasuring 1 Acre out of his share of 6 Acres for sugarcane cultivation. These two petitioners also have claimed likewise compensation and damages as a result of non-crushing of the sugarcane by the sugar factory respondent-Kada Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kada, Taluqa Ashti, District Beed. 6. In a similar manner as that of the other petitions, the Commissioner was appointed to enquire and report to this Court, in regard to the aspects specified hereinabove in the interim order of this Court. The report is submitted and accordingly the petitions are taken up for hearing before us. 7. In these petitions, we have the report of Shri S.B. Joshi as the authorised officer of the Director of Sugar, appointed in pursuance of the order of this Court. We are told at the Bar that Shri S.B. Joshi is the retired Class-I officer from the Co-operative department and as such he has considerable experience in the matters of conduct of the affairs of the Co-operative societies. 8. We have carefully gone through the report which in on record. The text of the report submitted in these two petitions, findings and reasons in support thereof are almost identical in nature, the record in regard thereto being one and the same. We have carefully gone through the reports which are on record. As we will indicate hereinafter, in our judgment, the report submitted considers every necessary and relevant aspect of the questions referred to the Commissioner and consequently enquired into by him on the basis of which certain conclusions are placed in the report. We have carefully gone through the reports which are on record. As we will indicate hereinafter, in our judgment, the report submitted considers every necessary and relevant aspect of the questions referred to the Commissioner and consequently enquired into by him on the basis of which certain conclusions are placed in the report. On hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the Karkhana-society, on taking into consideration the submissions as the Bar placed by the learned Government Pleader in support of the report and on carefully going through the contents of the report, we hereby record for the following detailed reasons that we have no hesitation in accepting the report of Shri S.B. Joshi, Authorised Officer, who conducted the enquiry himself and submitted the report in pursuance thereof to our satisfaction, not only in regard to the aspects placed by him and conclusions reached by him in regard to the questions referred to him but also in regard to the final conclusions with reference to the various items of the amounts as suggested by him. It would also not be out of place to record at the outset, to be referred to hereinafter in details, that the Commissioner has also recorded the opinion that the Karkhana-society could have harvested and crushed the sugarcane of the petitioners without thereby causing any occasion for them to approach this Court with their grievances had the Karkhana-society continued the crushing season only for a period of 6 or 7 days more. The Commissioner also has recorded that there are instances of deliberate by-passing of the sequence of harvesting programme without any justification or reasonable cause. These are the triable features which are available from the contents of the report of the Commissioner in these petitions. 9. We now take up for consideration the details of the report. 10. In our judgment, in the earlier petitions (Writ Petitions Nos. 1492 of 1990 and 1694 of 1990), we have already referred to in detail the contents of the report submitted by the Commissioner in those petitions. The report of the Commissioner in these petitions though submitted by a different person, the conclusions and reasons in support thereof are almost identical though couched and spelt out in little different language and expression. 11. The report records that the petitioners are members of the Karkhana-society for a long period. The report of the Commissioner in these petitions though submitted by a different person, the conclusions and reasons in support thereof are almost identical though couched and spelt out in little different language and expression. 11. The report records that the petitioners are members of the Karkhana-society for a long period. It also records that the sugarcane in question is registered with the Karkhana-society. Apart from other observations, it is recorded by the Commissioner that the petitioners' sugarcane is not cut even upto September 30, 1990, though the sugarcane of all others has been cut and crushed. It is observed in addition that the sugarcane of 10 non-members has been cut and crushed. It is pointed out that the petitioners' sugarcane is planted on December 30, 1988, on January 1, 1989, respectively. The said sugarcane is not harvested. It is further observed that it is surprising that the sugarcane of some other person Shri A.V. Phadtare who cultivated the cane much thereafter on March 3, 1989, has been cut and lifted on May 9, 1990, by the Karkhana-society. One more instance is recorded in the report and that is of Shri Bhausaheb Zanje who has his land in Survey No. 71. In a similar fashion, it is observed that though he planted his sugarcane on December 30, 1988, the sugarcane is lifted on April 11, 1990, much prior to the commencement of the rains. It rained on May 13, 1990. Inspite of this position, petitioners' sugarcane is left in the field. The Commissioner observes in this context that the petitioners' sugarcane should have been cut by the Karkhana-society either on the same day or on the next day thereafter, as the said sugarcane was planted in the same survey number. The Commissioner has accepted the contention of the petitioners that the Karkhana-society has intentionally done injustice to the petitioners in not cutting the sugarcane in the field when Karkhana-society was prompt enough to cut the sugarcane of the same survey number much prior to the rains in question and in accordance with the crushing programme. 12. In the report, it is also found that the petitioners were not informed in advance within sufficient and reasonable time in regard to the difficulties of the Karkhana-society due to the heavy rains. 12. In the report, it is also found that the petitioners were not informed in advance within sufficient and reasonable time in regard to the difficulties of the Karkhana-society due to the heavy rains. It is also taken into consideration by the Commissioner that difficulties of private individuals to procure necessary labour and transport cannot be left out of consideration especially in view of the ample material on record in regard to the conduct of the Karkhana-society. The report further observes that the Karkhana-society has only come up with certain allegations with regard to the trouble created by neighbouring agriculturists. The said allegations have not been accepted by the Commissioner on the ground of their remaining at the stage of being mere allegations themselves. The detailed perusal of the report shows that the Commissioner has taken into consideration practically all the aspects placed before him by the parties to the proceedings. 13. The report records a positive finding that the Karkhana-society has in fact by-passed the sequence in the crushing programme by not cutting the petitioners' sugarcane and cutting the sugarcane of other cultivators in the same village, may, from the same survey number. The Commissioner also proceeds to record his finding that there is no convincing reason as to why the sugarcane of the petitioners was not cut and all other grower-members' of the same village was cut. It is recorded that this has resulted in injustice to the petitioners. 14. Although in his report, the Commissioner has found it difficult to accept the contention of the petitioners, as regards political hostility as the reason for meeting the treatment in question by the petitioners as difficult to be accepted on the material before him, positive and definite conclusion is recorded by the Commissioner in the matter of by-passing of the crushing programme. In the process of recording of this conclusion as regards by-passing of the crushing programme, we find in the report that certain persons have been given preference in the manner of this by-passing. The preference shown is to such an extent that the Karkhana-society has gone to the extent of cutting the sugarcane of the cultivator from the same survey number leaving out the sugarcane of the petitioners for all times. The preference shown is to such an extent that the Karkhana-society has gone to the extent of cutting the sugarcane of the cultivator from the same survey number leaving out the sugarcane of the petitioners for all times. Looking at these aspects, in our judgment, although the political motive as suggested has not found favour with the Commissioner, the report of the Commissioner and the conclusions recorded by him positively and clearly exhibit lack of bona-fides on the part of the Karkhana-society. The manner in which it is shown in the report that the crushing programme has been by-passed by showing the favours to certain cultivators, we have no hesitation to record that the by-passing of the crushing programme by the Karkhana-society was with mala fide intentions and at any rate exhibits total lack of bona fides on the part of the Karkhana-society. 15. Careful and cautious approach of the Commissioner is exhibited also with reference to the observations wherein the Commissioner has also realised that rains and the roads did create difficulty but that was not during the time when the Karkhana-society could have lifted the sugarcane of the petitioners had the Karkhana-society adhered to the crushing programme. In view of these aspects, the Commissioner rightly and we accept his reasons, posed the real question as to why the Karkhana-society did not lift the sugarcane of the petitioners when it had done so in respect of the members and other non-members from the same field in the same survey number and also of others in violation of the maintenance of the crushing programme. Rightly, therefore, for all these reasons, the Commissioner held that the Karkhana-society is liable for compensating the petitioners for the loss. 16. In the similar way, as in the report of the Commissioner in earlier petitions, the Commissioner has taken into consideration the actual monetary loss with reference to the petitioners' claims as against the other material on record. The petitioners claim on the basis that the yield will be at 70 M.T. per Acre on the basis of the price of Rs. 350/- per matric tonne. The Commissioner has given reasons that the claim of the petitioners is on the higher side. Accordingly, he accepted the price at Rs. 300/- per metric tonne of the Karkhana-society and yield at 50 metric tonne per acre. 350/- per matric tonne. The Commissioner has given reasons that the claim of the petitioners is on the higher side. Accordingly, he accepted the price at Rs. 300/- per metric tonne of the Karkhana-society and yield at 50 metric tonne per acre. He has arrived at these two aspects on the basis of cogent and satisfactory reasons. He has also taken into consideration the amount of financial assistance available to the petitioners from the State Government at the rate of Rs. 4,000/- per acre. 17. As we have done in earlier petitions, in addition to the amount of loss, the petitioners are entitled to interest at the rate of 12% p.a. in addition to the amount for loss. 18. Added to this aspect, in these petitions, the Commissioner has taken into consideration the further quantum of compensation amount to which the petitioners would be entitled for the current crushing year. It is observed in the report that the petitioners would be entitled to the same amount on the basis of the rate of Rs. 300/- and also on the basis of the yield being 50 metric tonne per acre. On the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of the fact that due to the conduct of the Karkhana-society, the petitioners were unjustifiably prevented from making use of the land for the current crushing season, we see no reason to consider otherwise than what has been observed by the Commissioner in his report. 19. Thus, it would be seen that the petitioners are entitled to the loss at the rate of Rs. 300/- per metric tonne on the basis of the yield to be 50 metric tonne per acre, both for the crushing year in question and the current crushing year. Added to it would be the interest at 12% p.a. as stated above. The amounts received by the petitioners by way of financial assistance from the State Government would have to be deducted from the said total amount. The position would be clear with reference to the following table: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Particulars Amount Interest Current Interest Deduction Net W.P. number of @ 12% Year on bank Financial Amount Area. loss loan Assistance payable Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eknath Sit- -aram Pawar. W.P. 1743/90 30,000 2700 30,000 1,000 7800 Rs. 56,700/- 2 Acres. Sitaram Ma- -ruti Pawar. W.P. 1743/90 41,250 3700 41,250 2400 9200 Rs. loss loan Assistance payable Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Eknath Sit- -aram Pawar. W.P. 1743/90 30,000 2700 30,000 1,000 7800 Rs. 56,700/- 2 Acres. Sitaram Ma- -ruti Pawar. W.P. 1743/90 41,250 3700 41,250 2400 9200 Rs. 79,400/- 2 Acres 30 Gun. Pandurang Shripati Pawar. W.P. 1743/90 37,500 3500 37,500 2000 7500 Rs. 73,000/- 2 Acres 20 Gun. Zumber Kashi- -nath Zanje. W.P. 2063/90 45,000 4050 45,000 ---- 8000 Rs. 86,050/- 1Hect 20 Acres Bhaskar Kashi- -nath Zanje. W.P. 2063/90 15,000 1350 15,000 ---- 4000 Rs. 27,350/- 1 Acre. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The result would be that the petitioner No. 1 Eknath Pawar would be entitled to Rs. 56,700/- (rupees fifty six thousand seven hundred only), petitioner No. 2 Sitaram Pawar would be entitled to Rs. 79,400/- (rupees seventy nine thousand four hundred only) and petitioner No. 3 Pandurang Pawar would be entitled to Rs. 73,000/- (rupees seventy three thousands only) as far as the Writ Petition No. 1743 of 1990 is concerned, whereas petitioner No. 1 Zumber Zange would be entitled to Rs. 86,050/- (rupees eighty six thousand fifty only) and petitioner No. 2 Bhaskar Zanje would be entitled to Rs. 27,350/- (rupees twenty seven thousand three hundred fifty only) as far as the Writ Petition No. 2063 of 1990 is concerned. 20. We have already observed hereinabove that we have accepted the conclusion reached by the Commissioner that the Karkhana-society has acted with mala fide intentions in the manner of by-passing the crushing programme of the Karkhana-society. We have also referred to and recorded that the conclusion reached by the Commissioner to the effect that had the Karkhana-society adhered to the crushing programme with reference to the plantation dates, the petitioners would not have suffered any kind of loss as their sugarcane would have been crushed before the end of April, 1990. In view of these aspects and facts of the matters, in our judgment, this is a fit case for grant of quantified compensatory costs to the petitioners from the Karkhana-society. It is observed that the Karkhana-society has not followed the conditions of the crushing licence and it is an obvious instance of breach. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we hereby order and direct that the respondent Kada Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kada, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed shall pay the amount of Rs. It is observed that the Karkhana-society has not followed the conditions of the crushing licence and it is an obvious instance of breach. Taking into consideration all these aspects, we hereby order and direct that the respondent Kada Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kada, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed shall pay the amount of Rs. 1,000/- (rupees one thousand only) to each of the petitioners by way of costs of these petitions. We direct that the said amount of costs also shall be deposited by the Karkhana-society-Kada Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Kada, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed alongwith the amount of compensation in addition thereto. 21. The Karkhana-Society is directed to deposit these amounts on or before December 31, 1990, and costs of Rs. 1,000/- per petitioner, that also is to be deposited alongwith the amount. In the event of the deposit of the said amount, the Karkhana-Society would not be liable to pay for the price of the sugarcane cut by it from the petitioners' land. However, it is made clear that in the event of the declaration of the final price by the Director of Sugar, the Karkhana-Society would be liable to pay the difference to the petitioners, if any. 22. For these reasons and accordingly as above, we make the rule absolute with costs. 23. However, this judgment cannot be without the following post-script. 24. We have about 78 petitions before us and in regard to these petitions, we have been under strain of the nature of the conduct of the sugar factories in not following the crushing programme and by-passing the said programme with deliberate and designed intentions as a result of which some of the cultivators who are petitioners before us have suffered. In these petitions, as we have already held, the petitioners are entitled to compensation and damages as held above. The Karkhana-Society would be liable for the payment of the amounts of compensation. However, in our judgment, the liability of the compensation amounts, which are hereby ordered by us, could not be legitimately thought of as the liability of the Karkhana-Society in view of the fact that these acts of deviation from the crushing programme, could not be, but the acts of certain individuals. However, in our judgment, the liability of the compensation amounts, which are hereby ordered by us, could not be legitimately thought of as the liability of the Karkhana-Society in view of the fact that these acts of deviation from the crushing programme, could not be, but the acts of certain individuals. We are anxious that an attempt has to be made to find out such persons who are responsible and, therefore, liable with regard to the amounts of compensation which the Karkhana-Society would have to pay initially as per the orders of this Court. It would be unjust that the burden of these amounts should be permanently on the Karkhana-Society itself in view of the fact that with efforts it would be possible to fix the said liability on certain individuals concerned with the deviation or by-passing of the crushing programme. 25. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties before us. We have also gone through the provisions of the Act and the bye-laws. We earnestly feel that persons who are concerned and, therefore, liable for these liabilities, if found, should really be far away from the field of co-operation apart from the civil and penal consequences in regard thereto. If no effort is made to deal with such persons concerned with the situation in a legally effective manner, it would be the Karkhana-Society that would be suffering the burden and this would be unjustifiable in our judgment. Not only that, but it is our view that such persons who are concerned in the acts resulting into the loss to the Karkhana-Society, should be permanently debarred and/or disqualified from in any way reaching near the field of Co-operative societies. 26. Our anxiety gets more than justified in regard to this Marathwada Region. In these proceedings alongwith the report of the Commissioner, we find a direction dated May 18, 1990, of the Joint Director (Development) of Sugar, Maharashtra State, Pune, wherein an apprehension is already expressed that some of the factories in this region, especially Marathwada Region, are accepting sugarcane for crushing which is not at all ripe and this results not only in the lowering of the tonnage but also is the result of manifold problems culminating into the ultimate loss to the sugar factories. On all these considerations, by the said circular, a mandate is issued to the effect that in any situation the sugar factories should not accept the sugarcane for crushing which is planted in the months of April and May. 27. An obvious reflection of this notification shows that even the Director of Sugar was aware of this position of not rigorously maintaining crushing programme by sugar factories in this region. Added to this, it can also be stated that the Director of Sugar was also aware of the emergence of manifold problems as a result of the by-passing of the crushing programme. The dismal picture presented before us by the facts and circumstances of these petitions displays an attitude of certain authorities of the Karkhana-Society who should be named and ascertained who can only be held responsible and liable for the loss to be suffered by the factory as a result of the by-passing of the crushing programme. The entire crushing activity appears to have been taken up for the benefits of individual ends. This would have to be found out and haunted thereafter. 28. In the nature of sequence, this would not be the be-all and end-all of the situation. In the circumstances, the concerned authorities of the State of Maharashtra should follow up adequate and effective remedies to deal with such persons both with regard to the consequences providing for the situation to see that these persons are far away from the field of co-operation whereby these persons would be permanently debarred and/or disqualified for participation in the affairs of the Karkhana-Society and also in regard to the civil and criminal consequences as a result thereof. These petitions have provided us with a situation of urgency to recommend to the State Government to take up the matter for consideration and if necessary, introduction of statutory provisions in the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, sufficient enough to deal with the situation presented before us by these and other petitions and we hereby accordingly recommend to the effect. 29. We also strongly express that the Director of Sugar as well as the Karkhana-Society should take immediate and appropriate steps to locate and fix the concerned persons with regard to the liability as regards the amounts of compensation which we are determined to award to the petitioners in the circumstances. 30. 29. We also strongly express that the Director of Sugar as well as the Karkhana-Society should take immediate and appropriate steps to locate and fix the concerned persons with regard to the liability as regards the amounts of compensation which we are determined to award to the petitioners in the circumstances. 30. For the reasons, we direct that the copies of the interim common judgment alongwith the judgment in these petitions caused to be sent to the State Government, viz. the Secretaries to the Government of Maharashtra, Department of Co-operation; and Department of Law and Judiciary, Mantralaya, Bombay-32, and also to the Director of Sugar for the Maharashtra State for taking necessary steps as per the above observations and according to law. -----