Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1090 (BOM)

Shrinath Maruti Reddy v. State of Maharashtra

2010-08-02

B.R.GAVAI, S.V.GANGAPURWALA

body2010
JUDGMENT B. R. GAVAI, J.:- By the present petitions the petitioners are contending that the petitioners should be paid the third installment of the sugarcane crushed by the Respondent No.2 factory. 2. According to the petitioners, the petitioners had taken a crop of sugarcane in the agricultural year 1994-95 and the same was supplied to the Respondent No.2. The petitioners contend that they obtained first installment Rs. 460/- per M.T. on 29.7.1995. An amount Rs. 10/- under the head of non-refundable amount was deducted out of the first installment. 3. According to the petitioners they received the second installment Rs. 150/- per M.T. also. It is the case of the petitioners that though the third installment of Rs. 55/- per M.T. was paid to some share-holders same was denied to them. 4. Mr. Ghute learned counsel submits that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No.294/1996, with companion matters dated 26.3.2004, a discrimination between the members and nonmembers in the matter of payment of price is not tenable. He, therefore. submits that the Respondents be directed to pay the third installment. 5. Mr. Sakolkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.2, on the contrary submits that the petitioners are not residing within the area of operation of Karkhana and as such they are not entitled for the third installment. He submits that third installment is being paid only to the members of the Karkhana. He relies on the communication dated 5.6.1996 issued by the Director of Sugarcane, Maharashtra State, wherein, the price of the sugarcane for the year 1994-95 has been fixed Rs. 676/- for the members per M.T. and Rs. 600/- for non-members. He submits that amount has already been paid. As such no interference is warranted. 6. The issue is no more res-integra in view of the judgment of the Division Bench cited supra. The Division Bench has observed thus: "The inference in that regard is apparently sought to be drawn by the respondent factory for its own benefit and to deny the benefit in that regard to the petitioners, in contravention of its obligation to pay the said amount to the petitioners in terms of the clause (xvii) of the licence, issued for the crushing of the sugarcane, under Clause 4 (5) of the said Order 1984. Indeed, the Clause (xvii) thereof clearly states that: "It will be binding upon the factory to make payment of cane price to the members and non-members at the same rate". Apart from the said clause, there is no other clause in the licence, under which the factory is empowered to discriminate between the cane growers, whose cane is crushed either with reference to any particular period or on any other ground whatsoever. In other words, it is obligatory for the factory to pay the same price to each and every cane growers, whose cane is crushed in the factory." It can thus clearly be seen that Division Bench in unequivocal terms held that the distinction between members and non-members in the matter of price is not permissible. The Division Bench has held that it is obligatory for the factory to pay the same price to each and every cane growers whose cane is crushed in the factory (underline emphasis supplied). In view of this clear pronouncement, the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that since the petitioners are not from the area of operating of the Karkhana, they are not entitled to third installment is without any substance. We find that in that view of the matter the communication dated 5.6.1996 is not sustainable in law. 7. The petitions are therefore, allowed by directing the Respondent No.2 to pay the third installment of Rs. 55/- per M.T. to the petitioners if not paid within a period of six (6) months from today. It is further made clear that the petitioners will be entitled to interest at the rate Rs. 8/- (Rupees eight) % p.a. from the date of filing of the petitions till payment. Rule made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petitions allowed.