JUDGMENT - B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.:---This group of petitions involve common questions to be decided by us and hence they are heard together on 29-4-2000 and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners are sugarcane growers within the area reserved for the respondent No. 2 sugar factory as per the Maharashtra Sugar Factories (Reservation of Areas and Regulation of Crushing and Sugar Supply) Order, 1984 (for short 'Reservation Order') issued under the powers conferred on the State Government by the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. The first petitions i.e. Writ Petition No. 2191 of 1995 and Writ Petition No. 2195 of 1995 came to be presented before this Court on 26th May, 1995 seeking for directions against the Karkhana to harvest and crush the sugarcane grown by the petitioners. By an order dated 31-5-1995, the learned Vacation Judge, while issuing notices to the respondents, gave interim directions to the Karkhana to harvest transport and crush the sugarcane of the petitioners from their agricultural lands located in taluka Degloor, Districts Nanded within 7 days. Subsequently, similarly placed sugarcane growers approached this Court and Writ Petition No. 3297 of 1995 came to be presented by way of an application before this Court by two sugarcane growers on 12-7-1995. This Court, therefore, directed all the connected writ petitions to be clubbed together and placed for orders on 19-7-1995, about 85 petitions were registered before this Court, filed by different sugarcane growers within the reserved area of respondent No. 2 sugar factory. It was contended by the petitioners that though they had cultivated sugarcane within the reserved zone of the respondent No. 2 factory, their sugarcane was not harvested and, on the other hand, the respondent No. 2 factory was importing sugarcane from the neighbouring States of Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka as well as from the areas which were outside the reserved area of respondent No. 2 factory. It was also alleged that the petitioners belonged to different political party i.e. Shetkari Sanghatana, the officers of the respondent No. 2 factory solely on account of political considerations refused to harvest and crush the petitioners sugarcane. It was also alleged that the petitioners belonged to different political party i.e. Shetkari Sanghatana, the officers of the respondent No. 2 factory solely on account of political considerations refused to harvest and crush the petitioners sugarcane. A letter dated 18th July, 1995 addressed by the Regional Joint Director of Sugar, Nanded, to the Assistant Government Pleader, High Court, was also produced confirming thereby that the sugar factory had crushed the sugarcane to the extent of about 4645 metric tons from Andhra Pradesh and 2334 metric tons from Karnataka without there being any authorisation from the Director of Sugar or any other competent authority under the Zoning/Reservation Order to issue licence and/or permits. The Zoning/Reservation Order was held to be intra vires and proper by the Supreme Court in the case of (Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Sangh Limited v. The State of Maharashtra and others)1, 1996(1) Mah.L.R. 174 and it was further held that the members and non members of a sugar factory are required to supply their sugarcane to the concerned sugar factory in whose Zone the sugarcane is grown. This Court, therefore, directed by its order dated 19-7-1995 to deposit an amount of Rs. 1,38,00,000/- by the respondent No. 2 sugar factory. An amount of Rs. 32,20,000/- was directed to be deposited within four weeks and the balance amount was to be deposited within 8 weeks by way of interim relief any liberty was granted to apply for withdrawal. 3. This order was challenged by the respondent sugar factory before the Supreme Court. The SLP was withdrawn with liberty to approach this Court for appropriate reliefs. An amount of Rs. 32,20,000/- came to be deposited on 18-8-1995 by the sugar factory. Further amount was deposited making the total of Rs. 62,20,000/-. 4. By order dated 3rd July, 1996 this Court directed the Regional Joint Director of Sugar, Nanded to conduct an enquiry either by himself or by authorising any subordinate officer not below the rank of Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The enquiry was to be conducted in respect of the cultivation of sugarcane by the petitioners and/or the persons whose sugarcane for the relevant period was registered with the respondent sugar factory. The enquiry was to be conducted in respect of the cultivation of sugarcane by the petitioners and/or the persons whose sugarcane for the relevant period was registered with the respondent sugar factory. It was also made clear that the Inquiry Officer was at liberty to enquire in respect of the persons who may approach him directly and who have cultivated sugarcane within the area reserved for respondent sugar factory including the probable tonnage of the sugarcane of such cultivators. In fact, these petitions were admitted and were made returnable for final hearing on 3-7-1996 but this Court deemed it proper to have the enquiry report before deciding the writ petition finally. 5. The Inquiry Officer, namely, the Regional Joint Director of Sugar, Nanded, conducted the enquiry and submitted a report to this Court vide his letter dated 4-11-1997. Sufficient notices were given to all the sugarcane growers within the reserved area of the respondent sugar factory by publication in the local news papers as well as through other means of communications. The observations of the Supreme Court "Public interest litigation and public assisted litigation are today taking over many unexplored fields and the dumb are finding their voice". (L.I.C. of India v. Escort Ltd.)2, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 1370, as recorded by this Court in its order dated 19th July, 1995, proved to be prophetic inasmuch as not only the original 85 petitioners appeared before the Inquiry Officer but in addition another group of 245 sugarcane growers put up their grievance before the Inquiry Officer during the course of enquiry proceedings. The Inquiry Officer was assisted by the Deputy Director (Sugar) Nanded and the Agricultural Officer. A representative of the respondent factory was also present during the enquiry proceedings with necessary record. The enquiry was confined to the points as directed by this Court and more particularly the acreage of sugarcane cultivation, its tonnage as per the explanation given from the crushing record of 1994-95 unharvested sugarcane etc. It was also revealed during the enquiry that the sugarcane of the petitioners which was not harvested during the sugarcane season of 1994-95 came to be harvested during the subsequent season i.e. 1995-96. During the pendency of this enquiry, some of the petitioners were also allowed to withdraw a fixed amount depending upon the stated acreage of cultivation of sugarcane. 6. During the pendency of this enquiry, some of the petitioners were also allowed to withdraw a fixed amount depending upon the stated acreage of cultivation of sugarcane. 6. The respondent Karkhana has filed its affidavit in reply and opposed the petition. It has been contended by the Karkhana that it had crushed about 2,90,000 tons sugarcane during the season of 1989-90 and about 3,40,000 metric tons during the season of 1990-91. It had undertaken expansion programme and increased its crushing capacity to 4,50,000 metric tons during the crushing season of 1994-95. It had noticed that the sugarcane under cultivation within the reserved area was to the tune of 3,25,000 to 3,50,000 metric tons and it was required to import about 1,00,000 metric tons sugarcane from outside. Necessary license was obtained under Clause 5 of the Zoning/Reservation Order on 26-12-1994. It was contended that 7000 metric tons sugarcane was received by it from the neighbouring States and it was harvested and transported by the concerned growers on their own. The sugar factory took a plea that some areas were not accessible by proper roads and due to early rainfall the harvesting labour was not available due to which the balance sugarcane could not be harvested on the remaining about 1128 acres of land within its area, notwithstanding the fact that the factory continued the sugarcane crushing till 30-6-1995. It is also contended that on 15-5-1995 public notice was put up on Notice Board of the Karkhana as well as through news paper (Godatir Samachar, Nanded) having wide circulation within its area indicating that the cane growers themselves should harvest the cane and supply to the factory at its gate. And the sugarcane growers responded and made arrangements to harvest the sugarcane and supplied to the factory. About 16000 metric tons of additional sugarcane was received in response to the said notices after 15-5-1995 and the petitioners' sugarcane could not be crushed as they did not take steps to harvest and deliver the sugarcane to the factory gate before 30-6-1995. The karkhana has also relied upon an order dated 12-7-1995 issued by the Government of Maharashtra stating therein that the State Government had decided to accept the standing sugarcane at the rate of Rs. 460/- per ton and the same would be used as cattle fodder. The karkhana has also relied upon an order dated 12-7-1995 issued by the Government of Maharashtra stating therein that the State Government had decided to accept the standing sugarcane at the rate of Rs. 460/- per ton and the same would be used as cattle fodder. It is the contention of the respondent sugar factory that on one hand it had taken sufficient steps to lift and crush the maximum quantity of sugarcane within its area of operation and the balance, if any, sugarcane unharvested was solely due to the reasons not attributable to it, and in any case the Government of Maharashtra had decided to accept the standing sugarcane at the rate of Rs. 460/- per tonne and, therefore, the sugar factory was not liable to pay compensation to the sugarcane growers on account of its failure to harvest, lift and crush the sugarcane during the season of 1994-95. 7. The State Government has supported the contentions of the respondent sugar factory and opposed the writ petitions. It is also contended that the Government of Maharashtra had announced a compensation of Rs. 4000/- per acre to the sugarcane growers whose sugarcane could not be harvested and crushed by the concerned sugar factory during the season of 1994-95 and, therefore, no additional compensation is required to be paid to such sugarcane growers by the sugar factory concerned or the State Government. 8. During the course of arguments Shri V.D. Salunke, learned Counsel for the respondent sugar factory urged before us that the sugar factory is not an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. During the course of arguments Shri V.D. Salunke, learned Counsel for the respondent sugar factory urged before us that the sugar factory is not an instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, a writ of mandamus cannot be issued by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned Counsel in this regard has placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of (1) (Som Prakash Rekhi v. Union of India)3, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 212, (2) (Ajay Hasia v Khalid Mujib)4, A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 487; (3) (Tekraj Vasandi alias K.L. Basandhi v. Union of India)5, A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 469; (4) (Chander Mohan Khanna v. The National Council of Educational Research and Training and others)6, A.I.R. 1992 S.C. 76 and the judgments of this Court in the case of (Shamrao Vithal Co-operative Bank Limited v. Padubidri Pattabhiram Bhat and another)7, 1993(1) Mh.L.J. 1 and (Dnyandeo Dattatraya Kale and others v. State of Maharashtra and others)8, 1995(3) Bom.C.R. 86 . This Court has consistently taken a view that a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is not an authority of instrumentality of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, a writ of mandamus under Article 226 cannot be issued against such a society. 9. A similar issue regarding directions to pay compensation to the sugarcane growers on account of failure to harvest, lift and crush the sugarcane by the concerned sugar factory pursuant to the Zoning/Reservation order came to be decided by this Court in the case of (Girdharilal Bhaulal Pardeshi v. State of Maharashtra and others)9, 1991(2) Bom.C.R. 425 : 1991(1) Mh.L.J. 630 . About 278 cane growers had approached this Court contending that they had cultivated sugarcane within the reserved area of the sugar factory concerned and their sugarcane was not harvested and crushed on extraneous considerations like political affinity or relationship and the complaints filed by them before the Director of Sugar or the Regional Deputy Director of Sugar were not attended to. A similar objection, namely, a writ of mandamus could not be issued to the sugar factory under Article 226 of the Constitution as the sugar factory is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution was raised before this Court in the case of Girdharilal (supra). A similar objection, namely, a writ of mandamus could not be issued to the sugar factory under Article 226 of the Constitution as the sugar factory is not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution was raised before this Court in the case of Girdharilal (supra). This Court observed that it was not necessary to decide the said issue and it was not necessary that a person or authority must be a State within the meaning of Article 12 for being compelled to perform a legal duty by issuance of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution. After referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of (Praga Tools Corporation v. C.V. Imanual and others)10, A.I.R. 1969 S.C. 1306 and in (Shri Anadi Mukta Sadguru Shree Muktajee Vandasjiswami Survarna Jayanti Mohotsav Smarak Trust and others v. V.R. Rudani)11, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1607, this Court held that on account of reservation order issued by the State Government a legal right duty relationship between the sugarcane grower and the sugar factory was established and if there was non performance of the said legal right duty relationship, a mandamus would lie against the erring party. We have no reasons nor have we have been persuaded to disagree with the view taken by this Court in the case of Girdharilal Pardeshi (supra). 10. If an area is reserved for the Karkhana under the Zoning/Reservation order issued by the State Government, it follows therefrom that the sugarcane growers cannot supply their sugarcane to any other karkhana other than the karkhana for which the same area is reserved and Clause 14 of the Reservation order stipulated that any person who contravenes any of the provisions of the said order or of the terms and conditions of a licence/permit shall be punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is thus clear that the sugarcane growers are not only estopped from exporting the sugarcane to some other Karkhana but they are liable to be prosecuted on account of such action. In addition, Clause 13 of the Reservation Order gives powers to the Director of Sugar or any Officer authorised by him to require production of books of account, documents, inspection of record, to break open and search any place, to search, seize and remove and to take into custody the crop of sugarcane. In addition, Clause 13 of the Reservation Order gives powers to the Director of Sugar or any Officer authorised by him to require production of books of account, documents, inspection of record, to break open and search any place, to search, seize and remove and to take into custody the crop of sugarcane. This power is wide enough to cast a duty on the director and his subordinates to ensure that the provisions of the Reservation Order are complied with by all the concerned. It is, therefore, a legal or public duty cast on the sugar factory to harvest, lift and crush the sugarcane cultivated within its reserved area pursuant to Zoning/Reservation order passed by the State Government and the Director of Sugar and his subordinate are duty bound to ensure that the terms of the said order are strictly complied with by the parties concerned, namely the sugar factory for sugarcane growers. 11. Even otherwise, the order passed by this Court on 19th July, 1995 was not interfered with by the Apex Court and the SLP was allowed to be withdrawn. It would be too late for the sugar factory to take a plea that this Court has no powers to direct compensation to be paid to the sugarcane growers whose sugarcane could not be harvested and crushed by the sugar factory though the sugarcane was cultivated within its reserved area. We, therefore, reject the preliminary objection raised by the karkhana regarding lack of powers to award compensation. 12. A number of factors are required to be examined for deciding the eligibility for receiving compensation by a sugarcane grower and these factors are the acreage under cultivation of sugarcane, its location, acreage nodified to the sugar factory, acreage registered in the 7/12 extract, date of cultivation and the maturity of the sugarcane crop for cultivation etc. These issues could not be gone into by a writ Court and, therefore, this Court had rightly ordered an enquiry to be conducted by the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) at Nanded. The enquiry report is before us and the same has not been seriously disputed by the sugar factory. These issues could not be gone into by a writ Court and, therefore, this Court had rightly ordered an enquiry to be conducted by the Regional Joint Director (Sugar) at Nanded. The enquiry report is before us and the same has not been seriously disputed by the sugar factory. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the sugar factory that some of the petitioners have withdrawn excess amount and as per the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, such petitioners are entitled for less amount or in some cases they are not entitled at all. It would be difficult for this Court to enquire into these aspects even at this stage. At the same time, we cannot be unmindful of the fact that strenuous efforts have been put in by the Inquiry Officer to conduct a detailed enquiry by interviewing 85 plus 247 sugarcane growers and an exhaustive report has been submitted in tabular form before us. This report must be accepted as a basic document to consider the entitlement, if any, of a particular sugarcane grower. There are some petitioners who have approached this Court after the enquiry was conducted and contended that though they appeared before the Inquiry Officer they were not heard they also should be granted compensation. We are afraid, we cannot consider such petitions which are not covered by the Inquiry Officer's report and it would be expedient to relegate them to approach the co-operative Court under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to raise a dispute for recovery of compensation so that the respective parties are at liberty to adduce sufficient evidence in support of their contentions and a decree could be passed by the co-operative Court on assessment of such evidence, as expeditiously as possible. 13. Pursuant to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sakhar Sangh Limited (supra), the State of Maharashtra had modified the terms and conditions of the Zoning/Reservation order and if the ban on export of sugarcane has been lifted, by such an order, there will not be any legal right-duty relationship between the sugarcane grower and a particular sugar factory inasmuch as, the sugarcane growers would be free to supply the sugarcane to a factory of their choice. In such a situation a writ petition praying for directions to pay compensation on account of failure to harvest and crush the sugarcane would not be tenable before this Court and the affected sugarcane grower would have to approach the Co-operative Court under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act in case the cane grower is a member of the sugar factory concerned or a non member sugarcane grower has entered into an agreement with such co-operative sugar factory. In either of the cases the sugarcane growers can pray for interim compensation pending decision in the main dispute and such interim applications shall have to be decided as expeditiously as possible. In the instant case the petitioners consist of both members as well as non-member sugarcane growers and the Zoning/Reservation Order was in operation during the relevant sugar season namely 1994-95 and, therefore, their claim for compensation will have to be considered on merits and on the basis of enquiry report submitted before us. 14. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners have contended before us that the tonnage per acre should be fixed at 40 to 50 per acre and the tonnage recorded in the enquiry report is grossly under-estimated and is not realistic. This Court in its interim order dated 19th July, 1995 had recorded a statement of the learned Counsel for the respondent sugar factory that on an average 20 metric tons of sugarcane is grown in one acre. But in the subsequent order dated 5-6-1996 this Court observed that as per the record of the sugar factory, the average tonnage pre acre probably was to the extent of 25 metric tons and the same figure was accepted for the purpose of interim orders. The Inquiry Officer had called upon the sugarcane growers to submit 7/12 extract for deciding the acreage of sugarcane cultivation. In some cases such extracts were submitted and the acreage did not tally with the panchanamas drawn in respect of some lands. The sugar factory was not able to submit reliable record so as to work out the acreage as well as tonnage per acre. During the course of enquiry the Inquiry Officer has gone into these aspects and on the basis of the information submitted before him, arrived at and recorded the figures of acreage as well as the tonnage per hectare. During the course of enquiry the Inquiry Officer has gone into these aspects and on the basis of the information submitted before him, arrived at and recorded the figures of acreage as well as the tonnage per hectare. In most of the cases the tonnage per hector is recorded at 40 to 50 whereas on the basis of interim order passed by this Court on 5-6-1996 the tonnage comes to about 60 to 63 per hector. The figures arrived at by the Inquiry Officer ought to be treated as more realistic though they have been disputed by the sugar factory as well as the petitioners, as those figures are based on the information submitted during the course of enquiry. We must also note that during the last more than 2 years or so neither the sugar factory nor any of the petitioners has filed any rejoinder disputing the figures of acreage as well as the tonnage as recorded in the enquiry report. Consequent to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sakhar Sangh Limited (supra), the sugarcane price per ton has been fixed at Rs. 600/- as has been recorded by this Court in its order dated 5-6-1996 and, therefore, the compensation amount will have to be calculated on the basis of the said price. 15. The learned Counsel for the petitioners have also raised a plea that due to non harvesting of sugarcane during the season of 1994-95, the sugarcane growers have offered double lose inasmuch as, the sugarcane was not crushed in time and as it was crushed in the next sugar season, fresh crop for the next season could not be cultivated. On one hand there was a loss due to non crushing of the sugarcane in the 1994-95 season and, on the other hand, there was no fresh cultivation for the subsequent sugar season. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that this aspect needs to be considered while calculating the amount of compensation. We are afraid, we are not persuaded by these submissions and more particularly keeping in mind the fact that the Government of Maharashtra has not only paid an amount of Rs. 400/- per acre for the season of 1994-95 and Rs. We are afraid, we are not persuaded by these submissions and more particularly keeping in mind the fact that the Government of Maharashtra has not only paid an amount of Rs. 400/- per acre for the season of 1994-95 and Rs. 5000/- per acre for the next season by way of compensation but also had shown its willingness to purchase the standing sugarcane crop at the rate of Rs. 460/- per metric ton so as to use it as the cattle fodder. The sugar factory shall be, therefore, liable to pay the compensation only in respect of the sugar seas 1994-95 on account of its failure to harvest and crush sugarcane in that season and in most of the cases, as is clear from the enquiry report, the sugarcane has been harvested in the subsequent sugar season and, therefore, the plea for double compensation deserves to be rejected. 16. The enquiry report reveals that in some cases the petitioners did not either cultivate sugarcane or did not own agricultural land in their names. Such petitioners would not be entitled for any compensation on the basis of the Zoning/Reservation order as applicable for the relevant year. The sugar factory has not been able to produce before the Inquiry Officer the sugarcane cultivation register nor was any notice addressed to any of the sugarcane growers as issued by the sugar factory intimating the excess cultivation or inability to harvest the sugarcane produced before the Inquiry Officer. The fact remains that the sugar factory has crushed about 4,50,000 metric tons sugarcane in the relevant sugar season and about one lakh metric tons sugarcane was imported either from outside the reserved areas or from the neighbouring States. The explanations given by the sugar factory regarding its inability to harvest and crush the sugarcane of the present petitioners, who have appeared before the Inquiry Officer, did not persuade us to deny compensation to the concerned agriculturists. 17. The vital question that remains to be decided is the amount of compensation payable, if any, to the individual agriculturists, who appeared before the Inquiry Officer. It would not be possible for us to examine individual claims even on the basis of the enquiry report submitted before us and calculate the amount of compensation. 17. The vital question that remains to be decided is the amount of compensation payable, if any, to the individual agriculturists, who appeared before the Inquiry Officer. It would not be possible for us to examine individual claims even on the basis of the enquiry report submitted before us and calculate the amount of compensation. This exercise will have to be done by a separate committee consisting of two members, namely, the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court and the Inquiry Officer, who has submitted the report before us. This committee will have to go through each individual case covered by the enquiry report and work out the compensation solely on the basis of the said report and no other pleas or considerations will be allowed by the said committee. This exercise should be completed within a fixed period and there is no question of hearing to be given to the individual agriculturist as well as sugar factory or their Counsel by the committee while calculating the compensation. In case the committee comes to the conclusion that in given cases the amount of compensation is less than the amount already withdrawn, the difference shall have to be redeposited with the registry of this Court within a fixed period and the respondent karkhana shall be entitled to claim the refund of such balance amount if any. -----