Judgment Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. This petition is by sugarcane grower but has filed through a Power of Attorney. It is the case of the petitioner that every year a policy decision is taken for payment of first instalment of sugarcane supplied to the sugar factories by the farmers. We are concerned with the year 2006-2007. The Government of Maharashtra had taken a decision to make the payment of Rs.850/- per ton by the Government Resolution dated 7th August 2006 and 31st August 2006. As the sugarcane growers were aggrieved by the said decision, they made agitation, subsequent to which, the Government of Maharashtra issued a letter on 04-12-2006. The first instalment to be paid would be of Rs.900/- per ton, for the sugarcane supplied to the sugar factory. Letter dated 04-12-2006 has also been circulated to the factories by letter dated 12-12-2006. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 4 Ambejogai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, District Beed has made payment of only Rs.850/-per ton instead of Rs.900/-, as notified by the State Government. It is therefore set out that representation was made by the petitioner to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 for making payment of remaining Rs.50/- per ton to the petitioner as per Government Resolution dated 04-12-2006 but that has been of no avail and consequent, the present petition. 3. The issue, therefore, in this petition is payment of first instalment as notified by the State Government. 4. Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on 30-05-2007 and additional reply has been filed on 18-03-2008. It is pointed out that considering the price of sugarcane in the open market and agitation by Shetkari Sanghtana and other factors, the State Government decided to revise the minimum amount of first instalment of sugarcane price to be paid from Rs.850/-to Rs.900/- per M.T. by letter dated 04-12-2006. The State Government earlier in the meeting of Ministers Committee held on 02-08-2006 had fixed the minimum amount of first instalment of sugarcane price to be not less than Rs.850/- per M.T. where the decision was taken in December 2006 to increase first instalment of Rs.900/-per M.T. Average rate of sugarcane in November 2006 was about Rs.1600/-per Quintal. The price thereafter have declined and come down to Rs.1250/- to 1350/- per quintal. The price thereafter have declined and come down to Rs.1250/- to 1350/- per quintal. As a result, respective Lead Banks are not in a position to release more amounts on pledge accounts of the sugar mills for payment of sugar cane price. The Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Mumbai has declared sugar valuation rate at the rate of Rs.1400/-per quintal and Rs.850/-has been released on pledge account for making cane payment. It is on account of that, that respondent No. 4 sugar mill is not in a position to pay more than Rs.850/- per M.T. as first instalment of cane price excluding harvesting and transportation charges. The decision of the Government to pay first instalment @ Rs.900/- per M.T. is subject to availability of fund on pledged accounts and other sources. Considering that respondent No. 4 has paid @Rs. 850/-per M.T. and as average expenditure for harvesting and transportation is about Rs.250/-per M.T. Respondent No. 4 has already paid Rs.1100/-per M.T. and as such, it cannot be said that they have not paid first instalment of Rs.900/- per M.T. 5. In the additional reply in answer to rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it is pointed that the cane price paid by sugar mills including harvesting and transportation exceed Rs.900/- per M.T. and that there is no need to initiate any steps. 6. Respondent No. 4 also has filed their reply and contended that they have paid @Rs.850/- per M.T. to all sugarcane growers and supplied upto 31st May 2007. It is also pointed that considering the cost of productive costs of sugar is more than the market price and therefore, they are at loss. In the additional affidavit filed by respondent No. 4, it is pointed out that the S.M.P. fixed by the Central Government is Rs.825/-per M.T. for the crushing season 2006-2007, which includes the charges of harvesting and transportation. It is also pointed out that in the crushing season 2007-2008, the Government of India has fixed minimum price of Rs.560/-per M.T. and respondent No. 4 has paid first instalment of Rs.560/- and Rs. 140/- as a second instalment and thus, paid total price of Rs.700/- per M.T. 7. In rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner, has sought to place on record the additional income as seen by the factory from the sell of molasses, from bagass and other by products, like rectified spirit, ethanol, electricity, ash etc. 140/- as a second instalment and thus, paid total price of Rs.700/- per M.T. 7. In rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioner, has sought to place on record the additional income as seen by the factory from the sell of molasses, from bagass and other by products, like rectified spirit, ethanol, electricity, ash etc. near about Rs.200/0 to 250/-per ton are obtained. Thus, total income from crushing of 1 Ton sugarcane is near about Rs.2035/- to 2200/-. 8. The question that remains for consideration is whether the factory is bound to pay more than the S.M.P. as fixed by the Central Government. The notification issued by the State Government to pay first instalment does not find any support in the provisions of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. Under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, besides the S.M.P. to be paid, the additional amount to be paid in terms of Para. 5-A. Additional amount has to be determined in terms of the Sugarcane (Control) Order. Nowhere does the Order stipulates that the State Government has power to fix as to what should be the minimum first instalment. That appears to be an arrangement to ensure that the producers on delivery is immediately paid the amount. The said amount normally appears to be based on the S.M.P. as fixed by the Central Government. 9. Considering the above, in our opinion, respondent No.4 has not violated the provisions of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. 10. In the light of that, there is no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.