JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of learned advocates for the parties. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking a declaration that para 3 of the Government Resolution dated 21.10.2011 is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it creates a hostile discrimination between similarly placed persons. It is stated that the mandate of this Article is violated by a completely arbitrary distinction sought to be made. 3. By prayer clause 'C' the petitioners are praying for issuance of a writ of Mandamus or a writ, order, direction in nature thereof to pay to them the compensation for the recovery loss and compensation for the transportation charges as per the Government Resolutions dated 14.11.2011 and 06.05.2011 by ignoring para no.3 of the subsequent Government Resolution dated 21.10.2011. 4. The above reliefs are sought in the following factual background. Each of the petitioners before us are limited companies but carrying on business of manufacturing sugar at their factories. Thus they are non co-operative sugar factories. The petitioners have been registered and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The first respondent is the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Department of Co-operation, Marketing and Textiles, it has issued the impugned Government Resolution. The second respondent is once again a State official. He is designated as the Commissioner of Sugar but essentially functions as a Registrar of the Co-operative Sugar Factories. It is the second respondent who implements the Government’s policies and measures so as to promote the manufacture of sugar in the cooperative and non co-operative sector. 5. The petitioners at the outset have clarified that, though, there is no express provision made in that behalf in the Government Resolution dated 21.10.2011, they are requesting this Court to direct the respondents to pay a sum of recovery loss compensation. The second request is to pay the transport compensation. 6. Though, above requests made to the State have not been expressly rejected but no action has been taken on the petitioners applications in that behalf made in writing. 7. The petitioners had, during a crisis faced by the sugar factories, particularly in the co-operative sector as they could not in the crushing season collect and process the entire sugarcane crop, rendered services to the Government. 7. The petitioners had, during a crisis faced by the sugar factories, particularly in the co-operative sector as they could not in the crushing season collect and process the entire sugarcane crop, rendered services to the Government. They have gone beyond a distance of 50 kilometers from their area of operation to the areas of operation of these co-operative sugar factories and although the crushing season was over they collected this excess sugar at their own costs, charges and expenses. 8. The petitioners seek the reimbursement of the costs. The petitioners submit that as part of a welfare measure to assist the sugarcane farmers because there was a excess crop and which could not be transported to the sugar factories in time and before the crushing season or the crop far exceeded the requirement of the sugarcane as raw material of the cooperative sugar factories, collected the same. This helped the farmers to obtain certain benefits and in terms of the applicable policies. 9. The petitioners have pointed out that the nature of relief would be clear if we appreciate that in the year 2010-2011 some cooperative sugar factories could not commence their crushing season. The Government, therefore, realized that the agriculturist and sugarcane farmers who were cultivating sugarcane faced numerous difficulties, they were without any remedy. These sugar factories nearby could not crush the sugarcane of such cultivators. It was in these circumstances that a decision was taken by the State to call upon the other sugar factories or even private sector sugar factories not to close their crushing seasons or their operations without the permission of the Commissioner of Sugar, the second respondent. The petitioners submit that the crushing license which had been given to them contains certain terms and conditions. It stated that sugar factories will not be permitted to be closed without prior permission of the second respondent. It was stated that the excess sugarcane which was available should be crushed by the existing sugar factories which may be in co-operative sector or in non co-operative sector. We will briefly refer to these Government Resolutions. The petitioners have annexed several other documents but what we find from this bulky record is that we are not concerned with the issue which is sought to be connected and linked with this petition, namely, State Aid and Financial Assistance to Establishment of new sugar factories. We will briefly refer to these Government Resolutions. The petitioners have annexed several other documents but what we find from this bulky record is that we are not concerned with the issue which is sought to be connected and linked with this petition, namely, State Aid and Financial Assistance to Establishment of new sugar factories. We are essentially concerned with the implementation of the policy decision by the State. If that implementation results in a hostile discrimination as complained and a violation of the constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 14, then, we would have to interfere in our writ jurisdiction is the submission. It is in that regard that the first Government Resolution dated 14.03.2011 is referred by us. 10. A copy of the same is at page 86 of the paper book. It is issued on the subject that in the crushing season 2010-2011 there was excess sugarcane crop and which could not be owned by the sugar factories within the area of operation of whom this crop was cultivated. If such crop is collected by the non-cooperative sugar factories and claimed as one in excess, then, some assistance in the form of reimbursement of transportation allowance is the request which was considered by the State and seriously. 11. The State took a decision that in this crushing season, if the sugarcane factories are ready and willing to pick up the excess sugarcane from about a distance of 50 kilometers, then, the costs of transportation of such excess sugarcane crop within this area would be reimbursed at the rate specified in this Government Resolution. There are specific conditions on which such reimbursement of transportation charges is permissible. Clauses 2 and 3 in that behalf are clear. After this Government Resolution was issued another resolution followed on 06.05.2011, annexure 'F' page 89 which is on the subject of the assistance/aid on increasing transportation and the crushing of excess sugar during the same crushing season. There are specific conditions on which such reimbursement of transportation charges is permissible. Clauses 2 and 3 in that behalf are clear. After this Government Resolution was issued another resolution followed on 06.05.2011, annexure 'F' page 89 which is on the subject of the assistance/aid on increasing transportation and the crushing of excess sugar during the same crushing season. After referring to the 14.03.2011 resolution, it is stated that there was a doubt as to whether even if the excess sugarcane crop is transported and brought to the factory premises by some of the sugar factories, the State was not sure that all of would be crushed and so as to manufacture sugar, however, some sugar factories co-operated and by extending their crushing season they ensured that such excess crop collected is crushed during this crushing season. It is for reimbursing the cost of extending this crushing season that the Government issued this Government Resolution. The compensation in that regard is determined @ Rs. 65/- per tonne and would be payable in terms of these Government Resolutions. Then, there is a circular dated 10.05.2011 and the Regional Directors of Sugar were informed that the above decisions have been taken. However, for implementation of these decisions, there are certain clarifications which are required, that is how in this circular by bifurcating the nature of these two reimbursements, the State clarified the matter further. There was also a guidance given as to how these policy measures have to be implemented. 12. The petitioners, then, rely upon an order dated 24.06.2011 and which is issued in cases of individual petitioners. According to the petitioners, this would indicate as to how each one of them participated and co-operated in this measure evolved by the State. They abided all the stipulations and terms and conditions of the applicable Government Resolutions. 13. However, on 28.04.2012 some of the affected sugar factories approached the Minister of Co-operation, Government of Maharashtra and pointed out that these sugar factories have crushed the excess sugarcane crop and which was brought to the factories at the costs, charges and expenses incurred by them. Though, the farmers and agriculturists have been compensated, the reimbursement in terms of the Government resolutions has not been made. A claim of Rs. 01,09,13,803/- was raised. 14. The petitioners also rely upon the Government Resolution dated 21.10.2011 and which refers to all the earlier Government Resolutions. Though, the farmers and agriculturists have been compensated, the reimbursement in terms of the Government resolutions has not been made. A claim of Rs. 01,09,13,803/- was raised. 14. The petitioners also rely upon the Government Resolution dated 21.10.2011 and which refers to all the earlier Government Resolutions. It also refers to the terms thereof and purports to clarify that the government has released a sum of Rs. 53,71,78,429/- so that the reimbursements can be made. Then, the correspondence on the subject is referred but it is stated that though some of the sugar factories have approached the competent authorities and seeking the reimbursement, the details have not been forwarded by them. It is in these circumstances, the second respondent was directed that all the proposals should be scrutinized strictly in accordance with the Government Resolutions and thereafter recommended for payment by the government. 15. At the same time, the impugned clarification is issued. 16. It would be proper to re-produce the clarification as appearing in the government resolution in the language of the State, namely, in Marathi. Clause 3 at page 111 reads as under: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 17. A bare perusal of the same would reveal that the State was of the opinion that in terms of the proposals for reimbursement received and for reimbursement of the above costs, the second respondent is in receipt of some proposals from private sugar factories. Meaning thereby, these are not sugar factories in the co-operative sector but in private sector. Since there a P.I.L. No. 20 of 2006 is pending before the Principal Seat of this Court and by virtue of an order passed in Civil Application No. 1379 of 2009 therein, these private sugar factories would not be eligible for any reimbursements or concessions in terms of these Government Resolutions. 18. It is this stipulation and relying upon the interim order passed in the above Civil Application which is challenged before us in this petition. 19. Mr. V.D. Hon, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in this petition would submit that the State Government has in making this distinction and discrimination acted contrary to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While explaining to the Court, the subject on which the Government Resolution was issued and elaborating its contents further Mr. 19. Mr. V.D. Hon, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners in this petition would submit that the State Government has in making this distinction and discrimination acted contrary to the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. While explaining to the Court, the subject on which the Government Resolution was issued and elaborating its contents further Mr. Hon would submit that the subject Government Resolutions have been issued so as to assist the farmers and agriculturists who have cultivated sugarcane crop in excess. The sugarcane farmers whose cultivated crop exceeded the requirement of the sugar factories in the area of their operation, were in great difficulties and faced severe financial hardship. The crop was lying as it is. It was un-harvested. It had to be harvested but some of the sugar factories had exhausted their requirement and their crushing seasons were coming to an end. They were not interested in lifting this sugarcane and bringing it to their factory. It is at that time the State intervened and invited all the sugar factories to help and even by extending their crushing season collect this crop arrange it to be transported to their factories and later on crushed. That would be possible by extending the crushing season. This was a proposal enunciated by the State and a measure in which any sugar factory could have participated. There was no distinction made in these Government Resolutions between co-operative and non co-operative sugar factories. Any sugar factory and irrespective of whether it is in private sector or in co-operative can come forward and extend this assistance. Once the petitioners responded then, merely because they are set up as private sugar factories or as limited companies no distinction can be made purely on that basis and for denying the assistance/reimbursement. This issue has no link at all with the subject matter of the P.I.L. The subject matter of the P.I.L. is establishment of new sugar factories and whether licenses to establish them should be issued indiscriminately. There was an unhealthy competition and generated in the co-operative sugar sector. Further there was excess or bumper sugarcane crop, but no opportunity to have it crushed and by forwarding it to the sugar factories does not mean new licenses have to be issued without any rational basis. There was an unhealthy competition and generated in the co-operative sugar sector. Further there was excess or bumper sugarcane crop, but no opportunity to have it crushed and by forwarding it to the sugar factories does not mean new licenses have to be issued without any rational basis. The licenses were issued for the asking and that has completely ruined the health of the co-operative sugar factories. The existing sugar factories are in doldrums and incurring huge losses. The P.I.L. projected the issue of issuance of licenses even to private sugar factories but they were not given on any rational basis. The licenses were issued to a few politically connected and favourites. Mr. Hon would submit that this subject is completely unrelated to the issue at hand. We are concerned, according to him, only with the distinction that is sought to be made by the State in denying the reimbursement of the transportation charges. Mr. Hon would submit that apart from the State stands being untenable in law there is also a judgment of this Court dated 06.05.2016 delivered in Writ Petition no. 415 of 2013. That was delivered in the case of Gangakhed Sugar and Energy Ltd. who was denied similar benefits. The Division Bench directed that such benefits be made available and the amounts in that behalf released on proper verification. Mr. Hon would submit that this judgment has been accepted by the State hence he would submit that this Court should strike down para 3 of the subject Government Resolution and clarify that irrespective of whether the sugar factories are in co-operative sector or private sector they must be extended the benefits of the Government Resolutions holding the field. Therefore, the writ petition be allowed. 20. On the other hand, we have a affidavit in reply and filed by the State affirmed by the Director of Sugar, Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. In this affidavit in para 2 he does not dispute that the Government Resolution dated 21.10.2011 has been issued. He does not dispute that it contains paragraph no. 3, however, he submits that the petitioners challenge is without any basis. He purports to clarify that this Court at its Principal Seat was concerned with several civil applications in the P.I.L. No. 20 of 2006. He does not dispute that it contains paragraph no. 3, however, he submits that the petitioners challenge is without any basis. He purports to clarify that this Court at its Principal Seat was concerned with several civil applications in the P.I.L. No. 20 of 2006. This Court was pleased to record a statement made on behalf of the Government that presently there was no policy of providing any regular financial assistance to private sugar factories. The Court further observed that permission for crushing to new private sugar factories shall be granted subject to the condition that the State Government shall not provide any financial assistance in the nature of grants, subsidies or guarantees. These directions were applicable to the applicants in the Civil Applications and also to such applicants who would thereafter apply for opening of private sugar factories. The contentions of the petitioner, therefore, that the directions of the High Court in the P.I.L. are unconnected to the issue at hand cannot be accepted, it is submitted by him that the directions issued by this Court in the above P.I.L. and the Civil Applications will apply to all private sugar factories and the State Government is bound by the same, that is how the State would justify the incorporation and insertion of paragraph no.3 in the Government Resolution. Then, it is urged that the petitioners are under a misconception that the State is under obligation to provide financial assistance to them for loss of recovery and expenses for transport of sugarcane. The States policy is to promote co-operative sugar factories as its ownership is with the sugarcane growers who are also share holders of the same, in co-operative sugar factories all profits generated are passed to the shareholders in the form of cane payment and dividends. The co-operative sugar mills mostly work on the principle of no profit. On the contrary private sugar mills are owned by private entrepreneurs and no sugarcane grower has any stake in its operation and management, the aim of these sugar factories is to make profit. Hence these private sugar factories cannot be brought on par with the co-operative sugar factories. It is in these circumstances that no financial assistance, aid, subsidy or incentives can be granted. The State is well within its power to restrict the grant of subsidies to the cooperative sugar factories and to the exclusion of private sugar mills. Hence these private sugar factories cannot be brought on par with the co-operative sugar factories. It is in these circumstances that no financial assistance, aid, subsidy or incentives can be granted. The State is well within its power to restrict the grant of subsidies to the cooperative sugar factories and to the exclusion of private sugar mills. Hence, the petitioners cannot claim any of the reliefs as prayed in the writ petition. 21. It is this stand which is reiterated before us by the learned A.G.P. appearing for the State, he also brought to our notice the order passed on 27.09.2016 in Civil Application No. 105 of 206 in P.I.L. No. 20 of 2006. He would then submit that there is a clear distinction and emerging from the record of this petition and that of Writ Petition No. 415 of 2013. He would therefore submit that the said decision has no application to the facts of the present case and the Writ Petition deserves to be dismissed. 22. With the assistance of the learned Advocates appearing for both sides, we have perused the Writ Petition and all the annexures thereto. We have also perused the affidavit in reply and the decisions brought to our notice. 23. At the outset, we must clarify that this Court is not concerned with framing of any policy by the State. This Court cannot direct framing of any policy much less its implementation in a particular manner. It is entirely for the State to take policy decisions but while taking and implementing them the State cannot act unfairly, unreasonably and in a discriminatory and arbitrary manner. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees equality before law and equal protection of laws. We have before us two policy decisions and which are traceable to Article 162 of the Constitution. The Court is not concerned with the plight of the sugarcane farmers or the co-operative sugar factories. The State may evolve and make schemes to assist them, to provide them aid to tide over any crisis much less financial crisis. It is entirely for the State to assist the co-operative sugar factories and which are stated to be in doldrums. Therefore, this Court has no concern with how much assistance the State wishes to provide to these co-operative sugar factories. It is entirely for the State to assist the co-operative sugar factories and which are stated to be in doldrums. Therefore, this Court has no concern with how much assistance the State wishes to provide to these co-operative sugar factories. In this case, we are concerned with the interpretation of the these Government Resolutions and which are on the same subject. They are on the subject of the crushing of excess sugarcane. The issue before the State was there was excess sugarcane crop in the State. The sugarcane crop growers, farmers and agriculturists were requesting the State to assist them in some manner or the other so that the standing crop can be harvested. By mere harvesting the standing crop the problem faced by them cannot be solved. The harvested crop has to find a market and in the market a price. It is common ground that the cooperative sugar factories have members and these members have their farms. Meaning thereby the farmers and agriculturists and the sugarcane cultivators are associated with the co-operative sugar factories. They may be associated in the form of shareholders or members and allotted specific shares and are deriving benefits in the form of cane price and dividends. The State is aware that these cultivators provide sugarcane crop to the sugar factory who in turn pays them the price prevailing in the market or determined by the State. However, each of these sugar factories have a ear-marked or specific season for crushing. Thus, after the sugarcane crop is fully grown and ready for harvesting, it is harvested and brought to the sugar factory. Thereafter, at the commencement of sugarcane crushing season this crop is stored by the sugar factories as raw materials. In the crushing season this raw material is taken for crushing and to eventually produce and manufacture sugar. Now, it is common ground that there are private sugar factories in the State. They have identified sugar cultivators and sugarcane crop growers who supply them sugarcane crop as raw material for manufacture and production of sugar. They may not operate on a co-operative basis but it is the State who extended the invitation to all sugar factories irrespective of whether they are in co-operative sector or otherwise to come to the aid of the farmers. The co-operative or non cooperative sugar factories were invited to participate in a welfare measure. They may not operate on a co-operative basis but it is the State who extended the invitation to all sugar factories irrespective of whether they are in co-operative sector or otherwise to come to the aid of the farmers. The co-operative or non cooperative sugar factories were invited to participate in a welfare measure. That welfare measure has been enunciated in sufficient details by us herein-above. In that these co-operative or non co-operative sugar factories by extending their crushing seasons collected the excess sugarcane crop. That is how they provided an opportunity to the sugarcane crop growers who had excess sugarcane crop to mitigate their losses. They could sustain themselves because of the timely assistance. The petitioners not only provided such assistance by collection of the sugarcane crop but even processed and crushed the same by extending their crushing seasons. There is no denial of the factual statement in the petition that the petitioners did participate in this measure. Further, there is no denial of the fact that the sugarcane crop in excess was lifted and brought to the sugar factories. There is also no denial of the fact that the sugarcane brought in excess was crushed by some of the factories by extending their crushing seasons. In such a welfare measure enunciated by the State, all may have participated including cooperative sugar factories. The question is how could there be a distinction and differentiation on the basis of the organisation, management and administration of the affairs of these factories. The sugar factories may be organized on co-operative principles. They may have been deriving financial assistance and other benefits from the State. They may be working on no profit basis but the question remains is in this welfare measure even those with profit motives participated and were rather invited. Once they were free to participate, their participation is sought, their involvement is encouraged, then, we do not see any justification for such distinction as is made. This is not a case where the State is extending its a helping hand to establish a new sugar factory. It may well extend a helping hand to those who are interested in establishing a new sugar factory on co-operative basis, it may as well deny any aid or assistance to those who wish to establish such sugar factories in private sector. They may be told to generate funds on their own. It may well extend a helping hand to those who are interested in establishing a new sugar factory on co-operative basis, it may as well deny any aid or assistance to those who wish to establish such sugar factories in private sector. They may be told to generate funds on their own. They may also be told to function on their own and without seeking any subsidy, however, for this limited purpose there can be distinction made by the State. However, when the prime object and purpose of the Government Resolutions is to provide assistance to the sugarcane growers and farmers in distress and difficulties, the State cannot deny the reimbursement of the costs incurred by the petitioners. It cannot deny the same by making an artificial distinction or differentiation having no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The reasons of denial also have no hearing to the object. 24. It is well settled that Article 14 permits reasonable classification. Any classification which is reasonable based on an intelligible differentia having a nexus or relation to the objects ought to be achieved is permissible and no Court frowns on such a distinction or differentiation. The writ Court only intervenes when the differentiation or distinction is nothing but hostile discrimination, when there is absolutely no basis or foundation for a distinction and it is entirely artificial having no relation with the object sought to be achieved. The Court must then intervene. We have not been shown any nexus with the issue involved in the P.I.L. and the one at hand. That has absolutely no nexus with the purpose and object of the Government Resolutions involved in this petition. The issue of opening new sugar factories in the State and not encouraging private sector to establish such sugar factories is entirely different. The P.I.L. and the directions must be viewed from that angle. We are not concerned with an issue of establishment of any private sugar factory nor is any private sugar factory before us seeking any assistance of the State for its establishment. 25. The sugar factories before us are seeking relief because the State has made a completely artificial distinction. We find substance in their complaint. 26. It is in these circumstances, we find that the reliance placed by Mr. Hon on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gangakhed Sugar and Energy Ltd. to be apposite. 25. The sugar factories before us are seeking relief because the State has made a completely artificial distinction. We find substance in their complaint. 26. It is in these circumstances, we find that the reliance placed by Mr. Hon on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Gangakhed Sugar and Energy Ltd. to be apposite. The Division Bench was considering precisely the same grievance. The Government Resolutions which we have referred, have been referred extensively in paragraph nos. 2, 3 and 4. The Division Bench found that as the conditions were favourable for sugarcane crop and there was a bumper sugarcane crop in most areas of the State, most of the sugar factories could not complete the crushing of sugarcane within the area of their operation till March 2011. In order to meet such emergent situation and to mitigate the losses of the cane growers, the State took a policy decision. The sugar factories who crushed the sugarcane beyond 50 kilometers on or after 16.03.2011 will be entitled to transport subsidy. The Government Resolution was issued. The Government Resolution also called upon the sugar factories to provide details and these government resolutions specifically permitted the Commissioner to invite even private sugar factories, there was no prohibition of any nature and enunciated in these Government Resolutions. That is how an allotment order was issued to the petitioner in that petition to transport and crush sugarcane in excess of the area of Barshi of District Solapur, Kalamb, Bhoom, Washi and Paranda of District Osmanabad. The order issued for collection of such sugarcane crop not being abided would invite the action in terms thereof. That is how the petitioners pursuant to this Government Resolution harvested, transported and crushed the excess sugarcane. Thereafter relying on these allotment orders it submitted its bills. The bills were for reimbursement of the transportation cost. There was complete scrutiny and verification of these bills. The recommendation was also made by the third respondent of to that petition, namely, the Regional Joint Director Sugar, Nanded to pay the transport subsidy. Still that was not paid. It is in these circumstances, that this Court heard both sides at great length. It referred to the stand of the Government and specifically raised before us, namely, it is the order of this Court in the P.I.L. which prevents the State from making the payment to private sugar factories. Still that was not paid. It is in these circumstances, that this Court heard both sides at great length. It referred to the stand of the Government and specifically raised before us, namely, it is the order of this Court in the P.I.L. which prevents the State from making the payment to private sugar factories. On due consideration of the materials placed before it, this Court in its judgment in Writ Petition No. 415 of 2013, held in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 as under: “10. On the other hand, the ld. AGP has submitted that due to order passed in PIL No. 20/2006, the claim has not been paid. He has further submitted that, the petitioner is a private sugar factory. The claim on account of subsidy of transportation of excess sugarcane in fact payable to respective agriculturists/sugarcane grower. He has further submitted that, the Govt. has already taken a decision to pay the amount to the petitioner subject to seeking clarification in the matter. 11. On due appreciation of submissions advanced and perusal of the affidavits, it is nowhere the case of the respondents that the petitioner was not entitled to transport subsidy towards the excess sugarcane transported pursuant to the Govt. Resolution referred above. So also, there is no dispute as to fact that the petitioner has carried out the work of transportation & crushing pursuant to specific order of allotment made by respondent no. 2 directing the petitioner to transport and crush the excess sugarcane in view of the situation exists during the year 2010-11. The Government was required to take the policy decision in view of the peculiar situation crop up due to bumper crop of sugarcane during the year 2010-11 as large quantity of sugarcane grown by the farmers lying in the field and waiting for crushing. In order to meet the situation, the Government has decided to grant the transport subsidy @ Rs. 3/- per tonne. By virtue of the said GR, the Commissioner of Sugar was empowered to issue the orders of allotment to the sugar factories. The GR dtd. 14.03.2011 was made applicable w.e.f. 16.03.2011, for the Crushing Season 2010-11. In order to meet the situation, the Government has decided to grant the transport subsidy @ Rs. 3/- per tonne. By virtue of the said GR, the Commissioner of Sugar was empowered to issue the orders of allotment to the sugar factories. The GR dtd. 14.03.2011 was made applicable w.e.f. 16.03.2011, for the Crushing Season 2010-11. By another GR dated 06.05.2011, the Government has take decision to pay the transport subsidy to sugar factories who make the crushing of excess sugarcane beyond the area of their operation w.e.f. 01.05.2011 and onwards and further agreed to pay subsidy @ Rs. 65/- per metric tonne towards reduction in sugar content subsidy/grant of sugarcane crushed during the period 01.05.2011 to 15.05.2011. The decision was taken looking to the situation so exists in the year 2010-11. The Commissioner of Sugar was empowered to take the appropriate decision and to issue orders of allotment by issuing the guidelines as per the directions and to issue orders of allotment by issuing the guidelines as per the directions contained in said GR dated 14.03.2011 and 06.05.2011. By circular dated 25.05.2011, it is clarified that the GR dated 14.03.2011 to grant transport subsidy shall be applicable to private sugar factories and such private factories also entitled for transport allowance/ subsidy. It is also clarified by said circular that the subsidy to be payable is not payable to the factory but it is payable to the agriculturists/farmers and while fixing the price of the sugarcane, the amount be paid to such farmers/agriculturists by including the subsidy amount in price of sugarcane. 12. By order dated 24.06.2011 issued by respondent No. 2 i.e. the Commissioner of Sugar, State of Maharashtra, a letter of allotment was issued in favour of petitioner/sugar factory to crush 65,335 metric tonne of sugarcane from the talukas of Barshi, Kalamb, Paranda, Bhum and Washi. In the order of allotment it is also mentioned that the approximate distance between places referred is about 100 km. The order of allotment also lay down certain conditions to be complied while executing the work and submission of the information in the prescribed proforma, which provides for furnishing various details such as quantity, the place, the name of agriculturist, survey number, area, tonnage per metric tonne and date of cutting sugarcane. The order of allotment also lay down certain conditions to be complied while executing the work and submission of the information in the prescribed proforma, which provides for furnishing various details such as quantity, the place, the name of agriculturist, survey number, area, tonnage per metric tonne and date of cutting sugarcane. The information in prescribed forms to be furnished after every 15 days and such information also to be displayed in the office of concerned Gram Panchayat. It further provides that, the petitioner shall daily submit report of actual sugarcane crushed to the office of Regional Jt. Director (Sugar), District Collector and Commissioner of Sugar, the sugarcane transported with distance. The order also mentions that, the Regional Jt. Director (Sugar) shall maintain the day-to-day noting of such excess sugarcane transported.” 27. We are therefore of the firm opinion that the distinction as sought to be made by the State has no basis at all. It is completely hostile and has no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the subject Government Resolution. In the circumstances, we allow this petition. We permit the petitioners to forward their bills for reimbursement of both costs, the recovery costs as also the transportation charges to the Competent Authority and the Competent Authority shall verify the claims in accordance with the subject Government Resolutions and on the touch stone of the same and if the petitioners satisfy these terms and conditions, then, the amount be released in favour of the petitioners as expeditiously as possible and within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amounts crystallized would carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the applications/proposals of the petitioners till the date of disbursement/payment. The rule is made absolute in the above terms with no orders as to costs. Needles to clarify that in scrutinizing and verifying the bills and in terms of the above Government Resolution, the State will ignore para 3 of the Government Resolution dated 21.10.2011.