D. V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) WRIT petition by a licensed sugar factory, which is allotted certain cane growing area as ear marked to it for supply of cane by the growers under the provisions of Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Control Order" ). ( 2 ) THE present grievance of the petitioner is in the context that respondents 3, 4 and 5 have filed applications for setting up new sugar factories and such applications have been made to the State government, Department of Industries and Commerce. It appears such applications are pending as per the averment in the writ petition. ( 3 ) PETITIONER having come to know about this has represented to the Commissioner for Cane development and Director of Sugar, Petitioner has given a representation to the Director of industries, Cane Development in Karnataka requesting him not to divert or reduce the cane growing area allocated to the petitioner factory as it is likely that in the event of new licenses being issued to start further sugar factories in terms of the applications made by the respondents 3 to 5 some cane growing area will be allocated to them also and during such process if any area allocated to the petitioner is taken out and allocated to the newly started factories, petitioner's position becomes tenuous; that the petitioner may find it difficult to continue its activity of manufacturing sugar for want of adequate supply of cane. ( 4 ) PETITIONER having not received any positive response from the Commissioner, has approached this Court praying for issue of a writ of mandamus to compel the Commissioner to consider the representation given by the petitioner in the context of possible reduction of cane growing area attached to the petitioner factory. ( 5 ) SUBMISSION of Sr. Manjunath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in this regard is that there is a policy decision and a Government Order dated 16. 3. ( 5 ) SUBMISSION of Sr. Manjunath, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in this regard is that there is a policy decision and a Government Order dated 16. 3. 2005 issued by the Government of karnataka in the context of prevailing status of sugar industries in the State, the number of sugar factories vis-a-vis the cane growing area available wherein the cane grown can be supplied to such sugar factories, and as it had been found that the available cane growing area is not even sufficient to cater to the requirement of the existing sugar factories and in this context in terms of this order, copy at Annexure-F to the petition. Government had taken a policy decision not to permit setting up of new sugar factories unless any cane growing area already attached to any factory becomes available due to the closure of such factory and accordingly submits that when such is the policy decision of the Government not to permit any new sugar factories being set up that applications filed by the respondents 3 to 5 for setting up new factories is clearly in contravention of the Government Order and that such applications should be rejected and that apart the Commissioner who is a functionary tinder the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966, is bound to take such development into consideration in the light of the provisions of Sugarcane Control order as well as the Government Order dated 16. 3. 2005 and should have at least assured the petitioner that the cane growing area attached to their factory will not be reduced or diverted to other factories etc. , that the Commissioner having not responded though under a statutory duty and obligation to function under the sugar control order it has become necessary for the petitioner to approach this Court seeking to issue a writ of mandamus to compel the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner. ( 6 ) IN this regard learned Counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the decision of the supreme Court in the case of The Purtabpur Company Ltd. , v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and ors. ( 6 ) IN this regard learned Counsel for the petitioner, has placed reliance on the decision of the supreme Court in the case of The Purtabpur Company Ltd. , v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar and ors. reputed in AIR1970 SC 1896 , (1969 )1 SCC308 , [1969 ] 2 scr807 and submits that the Supreme Court having taken the view that the Commissioner being one of the statutory authority is under a statutory duty to consider the representation filed by the petitioner and to pass appropriate order and he having failed to do that, it is open to the petitioner to seek for issue of a writ of mandamus from this Court. ( 7 ) THE provisions of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966, are one for regulating the distribution of sugarcane grown in areas which are allocated to sugar factories. It is no doubt true that the control order seeks to achieve the object of the sugar production in the factories being maintained and that it does not suffer for want of supply of commensurate quantity of cane. But ultimately the object of the control order is to ensure the proper distribution of sugar, the end product of sugar cane and to see that sugar an essential commodity is made available to the public at large at a reasonable price and also to ensure its availability. ( 8 ) IN a matter of this nature though incidentally the regulation made to some extent benefits persons like the petitioner running sugar factories, it does not necessarily mean that it is because of a right which the petitioner has, the control order is made nor the production of cane is regulated under the control order. Persons like the petitioner may be incidentally beneficiary of the control order, but I do not find any inherent right in the petitioner to seek for issue of a writ of mandamus to enforce such right, a right which the petitioner has otherwise. ( 9 ) IT is no doubt true that the 2nd respondent statutory functionary is bound to act in conformity with the statutory provisions and any violation of the provisions notwithstanding the terms of any order it can always be examined in judicial review and made subject matter for issue of a writ of certiorar. ( 9 ) IT is no doubt true that the 2nd respondent statutory functionary is bound to act in conformity with the statutory provisions and any violation of the provisions notwithstanding the terms of any order it can always be examined in judicial review and made subject matter for issue of a writ of certiorar. But insofar as issue of a writ of mandamus is concerned it can only be when a duty is cast which duty is not performed which can entail a person to seek for issue of a writ of mandamus. The representation having not been made in terms of any statutory provisions in support of any right in favour of the petitioner, I do not find any occasion to issue a writ of mandamus in the present case to compel the Commissioner to consider the representation and pass orders in accordance with law. ( 10 ) IN fact I am of the view that it is still premature for the petitioner to approach this Court particularly as the petitioner has not pointed out any violation statutory or otherwise in any of the order passed by the 2nd respondent. ( 11 ) THERE is no presumption that the 2nd respondent will act in contravention or violation of the statutory provisions and therefore is required to be restrained from doing so. On the other hand, there is a presumption that every public authority will act in accordance with the statutory provisions and it is also bound to act in accordance with the statutory provisions. It is only as and when a positive violation takes place such action be made subject matter for issue of a writ of certiorar. This Writ petition is dismissed.