JUDGMENT- V.K. BARDE, J.:---The petitioners are agriculturists who cultivate sugarcane crops on their land situated at Navgaon Tq. Paithan, District Aurangabad. They are the sugarcane grower members of the respondent No. 4 Co-operative Sugar Factory and they are known as “A” class members of the said society. The petitioners have contended that they are supplying sugarcane to the said sugar factory since 1981-82. However, the respondent No. 4 Sugar Factory failed to pay the price of sugarcane sold by them, within stipulated period of fourteen days after the supply of sugarcane. A statement is annexed with this petition indicating as to when the sugarcane was supplied by the petitioners to the respondent No. 4 factory; when the payment was made for the said sugarcane supplied by the petitioners. It is the contention of the petitioners that on certain occasions there was late payment. 2. The petitioners have contended that the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 which is notified as per the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 makes a provision under Clause 3-A that the price of the sugarcane purchased by the purchaser of sugar must be paid within fourteen days from the date of supply of sugarcane and, if there is any failure to make such a payment, then the purchaser of sugar to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum for the period of delay caused in making the payment. The respondent No. 4 Sugar factory, in spite of this specific provision and the order issued under the Act, has failed to carry out its legal obligation of paying the price of sugarcane within fourteen days from the date of supply of sugarcane or the interest on the delayed payment. 3. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 Director of Sugar, and the respondent No. 3-Regional Deputy Director (Sugar) are the officers appointed by the State of Maharashtra (respondent No. 1), for supervising the work of sugar factories with respect to supply of sugarcane and sale of sugar and other connected matters. The petitioners had moved the respondents 2 and 3 in respect of non-payment of interest on late payment of price of the sugarcane. However, the respondents 2 and 3 failed to take any action against the respondent No. 4 sugar factory. The petitioners had moved the respondents 2 and 3 in respect of non-payment of interest on late payment of price of the sugarcane. However, the respondents 2 and 3 failed to take any action against the respondent No. 4 sugar factory. In fact, the respondent No. 4 Sugar factory ought to have been prosecuted as per the provisions of section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 4. It is also the contention of the petitioners that non-payment of interest on the price of the sugarcane sold, virtually amounts to non-payment of the price of sugarcane itself and from that point of view also, there is breach of provisions of Sugarcane Control Order, 1966. 5. The petitioners have further contended that the price of sugarcane for the crushing season 1985-86 was fixed at Rs. 230/- per metric ton by the State of Maharashtra, as per the communication dated 26-6-1987. However, while paying the price of the sugarcane sold by the petitioners to the respondent No. 4 Sugar factory; from this price of R. 230/- PMT, an amount of Rs. 10/- PMT was deducted towards non-refundable deposit; Re. 1/- PMT for Sugarcane Development Fund and Rs. 2/- PMT for Drought Relief Fund. So the petitioners were paid less for the sugarcane supplied in the year 1985-86 i.e. at the rate of Rs. 217 PMT instead of Rs. 230 PMT. All these deductions were illegal and the respondents 1 to 4 were not authorised to deduct such amounts from price payable to the petitioners. It is the grievance of the petitioners that they were not heard before making any such deductions. No consent of the petitioners was obtained for making such deductions and, therefore, the deduction of Rs. 13/-PMT from the price payable, is totally illegal. 6. It is also contended by the petitioners that as per the Bye-laws of the respondent No. 4 Sugar factory, there are certain obligations on the respondent No. 4. The aims and objects of the sugar factory are made clear in the said Bye-laws. However, the respondent No. 4 has failed to carry out its business to meet the aims and object as declared under the Bye-laws. There is total mismanagement of the business of the respondent No. 4 Sugar factory by the Managing Committee of the respondent No. 4. However, the respondent No. 4 has failed to carry out its business to meet the aims and object as declared under the Bye-laws. There is total mismanagement of the business of the respondent No. 4 Sugar factory by the Managing Committee of the respondent No. 4. Even after the petitioners had approached the respondent No. 4 for implementing the scheme as per the aims and objects declared in the bye-laws, the respondent No. 4 did not pay any heed. Even crushing of the sugarcane during the crushing season is not being done properly. The daily capacity of the sugarcane crushing of the factory is 1500 MT per day; whereas not even 150 MT sugar was being crushed per day in the crushing season of 1988 and, therefore, the factory is running in huge losses. 7. The petitioners have contended that under the Bye-laws No. 64 of the respondent No. 4 Sugar factory, the respondent No. 4 has to fix the price of the sugarcane when the crops are standing on the land and this is done with a view that the agriculturists would be able to estimate their return and would be able to plan their budgets. However no agreements are being entered into by the sugar factory with the agriculturists for supply of sugarcane as contemplated under the Bye-laws and as per the provisions of Maharashtra Sugar Factories (Reservation of Areas and Regulation of Crushing and Sugarcane Supply) Order, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as “Zoning Order”). Thus the sugarcane growers were put to great hardship. 8. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the respondent No. 4 Sugar factory is expected to maintain details with respect of plantation of sugarcane by the members of the sugar factory; and the days of harvesting of the sugarcane also are required to be communicated to each of the members of the Sugar factory, depending upon the date of plantation of the sugarcane and the programme of Sugar factory regarding crushing of the sugarcane. Such intimation is required to be given at least 15 to 20 days in advance so that the sugarcane growers can water the sugarcane crop at proper time which ultimately helps in proper harvesting of the sugarcane. However, if such advance intimation is not given the harvesting becomes difficult due to water in the field. Such intimation is required to be given at least 15 to 20 days in advance so that the sugarcane growers can water the sugarcane crop at proper time which ultimately helps in proper harvesting of the sugarcane. However, if such advance intimation is not given the harvesting becomes difficult due to water in the field. And if the intimation is given and there is delay in actual harvesting, the crop of sugarcane standing on the field without proper watering suffers damages in weight as well as in sugar recovery. As the respondent No. 4 did not comply with these guidelines, the petitioners and other agriculturists have suffered losses. 9. The petitioners have contended that as per the provisions of the Zoning Order an agriculturist is not permitted to sell his sugarcane to any other sugar factory outside the Zone in which the lands of the agriculturists are situated. All the sugarcane has to be supplied to the sugar factory which is within the Zone. However, a provision is made under Clause 5 of the Zoning Order that the agriculturist may decline to supply the sugarcane to the sugar factory from his Zone and he may seek permission from the concerned officer to sell his sugarcane to any other sugar factory outside the Zone. The petitioners were suffering losses because of the mismanagement of the respondent No. 4 factory. The petitioners made an application to the respondent No. 3 on 6/8th December, 1987 seeking permission to sell the sugarcane from the fields of the petitioners to the respondent No. 5 factory. The respondent No. 3 on receiving this application, issued notice to the respondent No. 4 and the matter was heard on 17-12-1987. The respondent No. 3, thereafter granted permission to the petitioners to sell their sugarcane to whomsoever they may desire. However, the respondent No. 3 did not pass any order indicating that the petitioners may sell their sugarcane to respondent No. 5 sugar factory even when there was specific request made by the petitioners to that effect. As there was no direction from the respondent No. 3 permitting the respondent No. 5 to purchase sugarcane of petitioners, the respondent No. 5 declined to accept the sugarcane of the petitioners. Meanwhile, the respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2 against the order passed by the respondent No. 3. As there was no direction from the respondent No. 3 permitting the respondent No. 5 to purchase sugarcane of petitioners, the respondent No. 5 declined to accept the sugarcane of the petitioners. Meanwhile, the respondent No. 4 filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2 against the order passed by the respondent No. 3. The appeal though was time-barred was entertained by the respondent No. 2 and order passed by the respondent No. 3, was set aside by the respondent No. 2 on 18-2-1988. Meanwhile, the respondent No. 2 had given stay to the order passed by the respondent No. 3 as per his order dated 8-2-88 and because of these developments the petitioners could not sell their sugarcane to the respondent No. 5 factory. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 did not give them any hearing before allowing the appeal of the respondent No. 4 and, therefore, that order passed by the respondent No. 2 is per se bad in law. 10. The basic reason for filing this petitions is the decision of the respondent No. 2 in appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 against the order passed by the respondent No. 3. Therefore, the petitioners have prayed that the respondents be directed to give permission to the petitioners to sell their sugarcane to respondent No. 5 factory and they also be directed to allow the respondent No. 5 to accept the sugarcane of the petitioners. Interim relied in this respect is also sought by the petitioners. The petitioners have prayed for other reliefs to which we will come later on, in the course of discussion. 11. The main relief which is claimed by the petitioners is that as the respondent No. 4 is not able to conduct the business of the sugar factory in a proper manner, the petitioners are suffering losses. Because of certain disputes between the petitioners and the Management, the sugarcane of the petitioners is not being harvested by the respondent No. 4 in time and that is also causing losses to the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners be allowed to sell their sugarcane outside the Zone of the respondent No. 5 sugar factory. 12. Because of certain disputes between the petitioners and the Management, the sugarcane of the petitioners is not being harvested by the respondent No. 4 in time and that is also causing losses to the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners be allowed to sell their sugarcane outside the Zone of the respondent No. 5 sugar factory. 12. Upon hearing the parties, on 3-3-1988, this Court granted interim relief to the petitioners which, in turn, was directing the respondent No. 3 to issue necessary authorisation to the respondent No. 5 to accept supply of sugarcane of the petitioners as then was standing on the fields of the petitioners and the respondent No. 5 was also directed to harvest the sugarcane, transport it to the sugar factory of the respondent No. 5, so as to manufacture sugar. In view of this interim relief granted by this Court, permit was issued to the respondent No. 5 by respondent No. 3 for purchasing the sugarcane of the petitioners as per the provisions of the Zoning Order. The sugarcane of the petitioners was harvested by the respondent No. 5 and the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Jadhav, the petitioner No. 1, who is conducting this matter personally for himself, have made a statement that the respondent No. 5 has paid the price of the sugarcane. So it is clear that because of the interim relief granted by this Court, the main relief which is being sought in this petition is given to the petitioners. And from that point of view, the petition has become infructuous so far as grant of permission to sell the sugarcane of the petitioners to sugar factory outside the zone. 13. The respondents 1 to 3 as well as 4 have filed their returns. However, the respondent No. 5, in fact, happened to be a formal party, has not filed any return. 14. The respondent No. 4 has taken an objection to the very maintainability of the present writ petition contending that the respondent No. 4 since is a Co-operative Sugar Factory registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and, therefore, it is not the “State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, no writ petition is maintainable against the respondent No. 4 factory. Certain case law is quoted by the respondent No. 4 in its return. Certain case law is quoted by the respondent No. 4 in its return. However we would like to make it clear that this point does not arise for consideration in this petition. The relief of mandamus as sought by the petitioners is only against the respondents 1 to 3 and no relief of mandamus or any other writ is sought against the respondent No. 4 sugar factory. The respondent 4 is made parties to this proceeding because all the contentions which are raised by the petitioners are with respect to the management of the respondent No. 4 and reliefs are being sought with respect to respondent No. 4. So to have the petition with proper parties before the Court, the respondent No. 4 is made a party to this petition. When no relief especially that of a mandamus is sought against the respondent No. 4, there is no point in discussing whether writ petition against the Co-operative Society is maintainable or not. So far as the respondent No. 5 is concerned, it is made a formal party and against the respondent No. 5, no relief is sought. So the whole issue regarding maintainability of the writ petition against the Co-operative Society is not necessary to be considered in this petition. 15. So far as granting of permission to sell sugarcane from one sugarcane zone to a factory situated in other sugarcane Zone, the matter has become only of academic discussion because of the Zoning Order itself to that extent was withdrawn in the year 1996 and now the agriculturists are free to sell their sugarcane to any sugar factory of their choice. 16. Furthermore, Shri V.D. Sapkal, the learned A.G.P. has relied upon the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case of (Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Sangh Limited v. State of Maharashtra)1, reported in A.I.R. 1995 S.C.W. 2338 and has pointed out that as per the Zoning Order only a sugar factory can ask for permit for purchasing the sugarcane from outside the Zone of that sugar factory and cane growers are not authorised under that Zoning Order to make any application so as to sale his sugar outside the Zone. It is specifically brought out to the notice of the State of Maharashtra that the Zoning Order suffers from such defect and this defect should be removed. It is specifically brought out to the notice of the State of Maharashtra that the Zoning Order suffers from such defect and this defect should be removed. It appears that as the Zoning Order itself is now withdrawn to the extent of prohibition for sale of sugarcane from one Zone to another Zone, the directions issued by the Apex Court of the country are practically followed by the State of Maharashtra. 17. Now it is not at all necessary to go into that question as what would be the loss farmers will suffer because of any prohibition under the Zoning Order. And more particularly in this case as the petitioners have obtained necessary relief by way of interim order. No further discussion is called for in respect of all those contentions of the petitioners based on Zoning Order. 18. This takes us to the relief Clause (C) whereby the petitioners have sought the relief of writ of mandamus to the respondent No. 1 State of Maharashtra, for directing the respondent No. 1 to initiate proceedings or enquiry against the respondent No. 4 for alleged breach of provisions of Sugarcane Control Order and in consequence breach of provisions of section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. This relief is being sought with respect to non-payment of interest by the respondent No. 4 on the late payment of sugarcane price. The learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as petitioner No. 1 has argued that it is mandatory provision under the Sugarcane Supply Order of 1966 to pay interest if the payment is not made within fourteen days after purchase of sugarcane. In respect of payment of interest by the petitioners, the respondent No. 4 failed to comply with the provisions of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966. It is brought to the notice of the respondents 2 and 3 and, therefore, the respondents 2 and 3 ought to have taken appropriate action in this matter. 19. Even if for the sake of argument, it is accepted that there was late payment and, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to the interest on price of sugarcane which was not paid within a period of fourteen days of the harvesting of the sugarcane, firstly the petitioners have the remedy open under section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 to claim such interest from the respondent No. 4. However till this date no such step is taken by the petitioners. So it appears that the petitioners are mostly interested not in receiving the interest but prosecution of the respondent No. 4. Furthermore, whatever breaches are committed as alleged by the petitioners, are committed in the year 1987 and prior to that. Now after lapse of considerable time, we do not think that it will be proper on our part to direct any such enquiry or prosecution against the respondent No. 4. It also has to be noted that the management of the respondent No. 4 which was in existence in the year 1988 is no more now in management of the respondent No. 4 sugar factory inasmuch as in the year 1998 fresh elections had taken place and a new management has taken over the charge. The Managing Director is also changed. So in such circumstances, now, there is no propriety in issuing any direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to launch a prosecution against the respondent No. 4 for offence punishable under section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 20-21. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 Shri V.D. Salunke, that the persons who were responsible for late payment of amount are not made parties to this proceeding and, therefore, such a direction cannot be issued against those persons without hearing them. 22. Whatever it may be, we would like to make it clear, at the outset, whether to launch prosecution or not, is the decision to be taken by the Competent Authority of the respondent No. 1-State and we leave it to their discretion to take a decision in this matter. We do not propose to issue any writ of mandamus or any direction for launching prosecution that is sought under prayer Clause (C). 23. Now we will consider the relief Clause (D). We do not propose to issue any writ of mandamus or any direction for launching prosecution that is sought under prayer Clause (C). 23. Now we will consider the relief Clause (D). Here the petitioners have contended that the petitioners were entitled to receive additional price for the sugarcane supplied by them, as per the provisions of Sugarcane Control Order, 1966-Clause 5-A. This additional price is neither calculated by the respondent No. 4 nor paid by the respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 to appoint an officer to ascertain the additional price payable to the petitioners and other agriculturists, who are like petitioners and then the respondent be directed to pay the amount as calculated by such officer. 24. Clause 5-A of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 makes a provision for payment of additional price to the sugarcane growers in addition to minimum price declared by the Central Government and detailed rules are framed thereunder as to under what circumstances the additional price should be paid and how the additional price should be calculated and when the additional price should be paid. Formula for calculation of additional price is also prescribed. So on going through this provision of Sugarcane Control Order, 1986, it may be that the petitioners may be entitled to receive additional price, for sugarcane supplied by them, than the minimum price fixed by the Central Government in the relevant year. However nowhere in the petition, the petitioners have mentioned what was the minimum price declared by the Central Government for the sugarcane in the relevant year and actually what price was received by the petitioners for the sugarcane supplied by them to the respondent No. 4 sugar factory. So it is not known whether the petitioners have actually received more price or not, than the minimum price fixed for sugarcane by the Central Government in the relevant year. For want of this actual data, no definite opinion can be given whether there could be any payment of additional price as contemplated under the Sugarcane Supply Order, 1966. 25. Furthermore, a procedure under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966, is being followed for fixation of price of sugarcane and this is in consonance with the provisions of Bye-laws 63 to 65 of the respondent No. 4 factory. 25. Furthermore, a procedure under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966, is being followed for fixation of price of sugarcane and this is in consonance with the provisions of Bye-laws 63 to 65 of the respondent No. 4 factory. The petitioners have produced on record one such order for payment of price for the sugarcane supplied in the sugarcane crushing season 1985-86 and after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects price is fixed at Rs. 230 PMT for the sugarcane supplied in the sugarcane crushing season 1985-86 and this order was communicated to the respondent No. 4 factory as per the letter dated 26-6-87. On going through the Appendix “A” Page 28 of this paperbook, we find that proper care is taken for fixing of the price of the sugarcane as per the provisions of Sugarcane Supply Order, 1966. It also appears that the price of Rs. 230 PMT is fixed at a higher level than the minimum price declared for sale of sugarcane in the relevant year by the Central Government and if that has happened then the petitioners are not entitled to claim any additional price of sugarcane. Since the petitioners have not produced on record the relevant data we presume that price is duly calculated by the authority appointed by the State Government and it is paid to the petitioners. Hence there is no need to issue any writ of mandamus with respect to prayer Clause (D). 26. With respect to prayer Clause (E), the contention of the petitioner is that there is mismanagement in the respondent No. 4 factory and, therefore, an enquiry is necessary. The petitioners sought a direction that the respondent No. 1 be directed to hold an enquiry with respect to mismanagement of the sugar factory and the viability of the respondent No. 4 to conduct its operations. This is a very specious prayer made by the petitioners. No doubt, there are certain allegations made in the petition with respect to mismanagement of the respondent No. 4 factory and at the time of arguments also this aspect was specifically argued by the respondent No. 1, contending that there are various instances of mismanagement. This is a very specious prayer made by the petitioners. No doubt, there are certain allegations made in the petition with respect to mismanagement of the respondent No. 4 factory and at the time of arguments also this aspect was specifically argued by the respondent No. 1, contending that there are various instances of mismanagement. He argued that the very circumstance that the crushing capacity of the respondent No. 4 factory was 1250 MT per day in the relevant year and far less sugarcane was crushed per day thereby losses were incurred is quite eloquent. It is also argued that there is overstaffing in as much as the respondent No. 4 Karkhana has employed 4000 employees when so many employees were not required and that has resulted in losses to the sugarcane growers. It is also alleged that crops of some favoured growers were harvested who were in good books of the management, while ordinary growers were being neglected, and their crops were not harvested in time, so on and so forth. 27. It is the contention of the petitioners that they had brought all these matters to the notice of the respondents 2 and 3 in the application made to the respondent No. 3 on 8-12-1987. However, the respondent No. 3 instead of taking into consideration the various allegations and instead of giving a decision on these matters, decided the application only with respect to granting permission to sell the sugarcane of the petitioners as per their choice and, therefore, the respondent No. 3 failed to perform his duties. Similarly when the appeal was filed before the respondent No. 2, the respondent No. 2 did not give hearing to the petitioners and these allegations made in the application dated 8-12-87 remained to be decided even by the respondent No. 2 and that has given the cause of action for the petitioners to move this Court for writ of mandamus. 28. Shri Sapkal, learned A.G.P. has argued that the respondents 2 and 3 are not the proper authorities for considering such allegations of mismanagement and to hold an enquiry with respect to this. Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 specifically gives powers to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, to hold such an enquiry either suo motu or an application made by 1/3rd members of the Society. Section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 specifically gives powers to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, to hold such an enquiry either suo motu or an application made by 1/3rd members of the Society. However, there was no application by 1/3rd members of the Co-operative Sugar factory to the Registrar, the appropriate authority and, therefore, no enquiry whatsoever is carried out by the Registrar. So far as enquiry by the Registrar suo motu as per the provisions of section 83 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 is concerned, the learned A.G.P. has argued that if the petitioners had brought all these matters to the notice of the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies and if the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies had been satisfied that there was some substance in the allegation, the Registrar would have started suo motu enquiry. So, this is not a case where a writ of mandamus can be issued. There was no such relief sought before the appropriate authority and there is no case that the relief was rejected by the appropriate authority. So writ of mandamus cannot be issued. We fully agree with the arguments of learned A.G.P. 29. It also has to be noted that the application dated 8-12-1987 filed by the petitioners was mainly for seeking permission to sell their sugarcane to any sugar factory outside the zone and to claim that relief, certain circumstances were brought to the notice of the respondent No. 3, the authority concerned. The relief was only for permission to sell the sugarcane to sugar factory outside the zone and the application was considered from that view—both by the respondents 2 and 3. The point which is pleaded in the application which is just to show as to why the petitioners seek relief cannot be considered by the authorities as the matters requiring enquiry by the authorities, as being now pleaded by petitioners. The application, as per the contention of petitioners, was under Zoning Order Clause 5 and it is considered by the authorities within the scope of that Zoning Order 5(1)(d). From this point of view also it cannot be said that the respondents 2 and 3 have avoided to perform their duties; the scope of the application was limited and accordingly, the application was considered and orders were passed. From this point of view also it cannot be said that the respondents 2 and 3 have avoided to perform their duties; the scope of the application was limited and accordingly, the application was considered and orders were passed. Hence there is no reason to issue any direction or writ of mandamus to respondent No. 1 to hold an enquiry against the respondent No. 4, for mismanagement. 30. It also has to be noted that the management which was incharge in the year 1988 is no more now incharge of the management. A new body has come thereafter elections and no fruitful purpose would be served by holding any enquiry against that management now which was running the respondent No. 4 factory in the year 1987-88 and, therefore, we do not think that the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed under prayer Clause (E) of the relief Clause. 31. The petitioners have contended that there is illegal deduction of Rs. 13/- P.M.T. from the price payable to them for the sugarcane sold in the year 1985-86. Though there were elaborate pleadings in this respect in the petition, no relief is sought by the petitioners specifically claiming a particular amount towards illegal deductions. It is not known how much sugarcane was sold by the petitioners in the year 1985-86 or in the subsequent year and, therefore, it cannot be ascertained as to how much amount is illegally deducted as per the contention of the petitioners. 32. Basically there is no substance in the contention of the petitioners that there was illegal deduction from the price fixed which was fixed at Rs. 230 P.M.T. Annexure “B” makes it very clear as to what should be the price of P.M.T. and what should be the deductions from the price so fixed by the Ministerial Committee. There is a deduction of Rs. 10 P.M.T. towards non-refundable deposit: Re. 1 P.M.T. for Sugarcane Development Fund and Rs. 2 P.M.T. for Drought Relief Fund. This decision is not taken by the respondent No. 4 but it is taken by the Ministerial Committee which is supposed to fix the price for sugarcane for sugar factory after the closing of the sugarcane crushing season. This authority is given to the Ministerial Committee under the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 as well as under the Bye-laws 63 to 65 of the respondent No. 4-factory. This authority is given to the Ministerial Committee under the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 as well as under the Bye-laws 63 to 65 of the respondent No. 4-factory. The petitioners who happen to be the class “A” members of the respondent No. 4-society are bound by the Bye-laws of the respondent No. 4—sugar factory. There is ample authority on the Ministerial Committee to direct certain deductions from the final price fixed for the sugarcane supplied in crushing season 1985-86. 33. Shri Sapkal has again relied on the same ruling of the Apex Court, which is cited supra i.e. 1955 Supp. (3) S.C.C. 475. He brought to our attention the paragraph No. 31 at page 505 wherein the Apex Court has held that deductions directed from the sugarcane price payable to the sugarcane growers whether members or non-members towards Cane Development Fund, Area Development Fund, Vasantdada Sugar Research Institute etc. which are for the public benefit, cannot be called illegal. So considering all these circumstances, we do not find any substance in the contention of the petitioners that there was illegal deductions from the price payable to the sugarcane supplied in the year 1985-86. The deductions are as per the directions issued by the Ministerial Committee and the petitioners are bound by the same. 34. So we do not think that the petitioners are entitled to any relief. The petition, in fact, does not survive now. Writ petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. Writ petition dismissed. -----