Counsel pointed out that even in the return filed by respondent No. 3 to the writ petition, respondent No. 3 enumerated four types of services which it claimed was rendering to the appellant 's factory, namely, (a) it made arrangements for lump sum cane supply on lump sum demand from the factory; apart from convenience this resulted in economy to the factory as it had to maintain less staff; (b) it undertook equitable distribution of quota and the factory had not to undertake this function; (c) it undertook the maintenance of the records of individual growers for cane supplies and the factory had not to undertake this function and (d) it made payment to the suppliers though the factory is required to make payments for supplies effected immediately and in actual practice mostly the factory made payments late at its convenience but the Society made payments to the suppliers regularly according to the programme drawn by it; the appellant 's factory thus benefited by the existence of this Society.