1 Lrs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.7400/2009 Shree Mahankali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ..Petitioner. vs. State of Maharashtra & ors ..Respondents. Mr M. L. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr C.R. Sonawane, A.G.P., for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 19TH JANUARY,2010 P.C.:- 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner is a specified Co-operative Society within the meaning of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. The challenge is to the order passed by the Commissioner 2 of Sugar dated 26.6.2009. The admitted facts are that the petitioner collect sugarcane for crushing from within its area of operation, as also from the places which are outside its area of operation. The petitioner, admittedly, entered into agreements with agriculturists who had supplied their sugarcane to deduct actual transportation charges that may be required to be paid by the petitioner for transportation of sugarcane. After taking into consideration the actual transportation charges, payments were made to all the agriculturists who supplied their sugarcane to the petitioner. In this situation, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by the Commissioner of Sugar asking the petitioner to show cause, why action should not be taken against it because it was not paying to all the suppliers of sugarcane at uniform rate. The explanation of the petitioner was that it is deducting actual transportation charges from the amount payable to the sugarcane growers on the basis of the individual agreements entered into with the farmers. It was also their case that in each case they have paid more money to the agriculturists than the statutory minimum price. According to the petitioner, if they are forced to deduct transportation charges by arriving at the average of the transportation charges incurred by the petitioner for transporting sugarcane, then it may be unjust to the farmers 3 who grow sugarcane in the area of operation of the sugar factory. This explanation was rejected by the Commissioner of Sugar by the impugned order dated 26.6.2009 and the petitioner was directed to deduct not the actual transportation expenses incurred from the price of sugarcane payable to the individual farmers but average transportation charges from the price payable to the farmers. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to a Chart which was submitted in relation to the payment made to the individual farmers for the year 2006-07, which is the relevant year for our purpose. The learned counsel submitted that in each case payment in excess of the statutory minimum price has been made and each farmer has been paid in excess of the statutory minimum price. He submits, because of deduction of actual transportation charges incurred as per the agreement entered with the farmer what has happened is that some farmers have received Rs.85/- in excess of statutory minimum price and some of them have received less than Rs.85/-. The learned counsel submits that in following this practice the petitioner has not committed breach of any law and, therefore, the Commissioner of Sugar should not have issued such a direction. The learned counsel submits that there is an obligation on the petitioner to pay statutory minimum price unless the Commissioner of Sugar records a 4 finding that the petitioner is paying less than statutory minimum price, no action could have been taken against the petitioner, specially when there was no any complaint against the petitioner from farmers who had entered into individual agreements with the sugar factory. 2. On behalf of the respondents an affidavit-in-reply has been filed. Only defence raised is that the practice of deducting actual transportation charges adopted by the petitioner is contrary to a practice followed by other sugar factories. However, except making that submission, nothing is placed on record to establish the alleged practice. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. We have also perused the record. Perusal of the Chart, copy of which is at Exh.L annexed to the petition, shows that the harvesting charges for sugarcane are uniform. Each agriculturist has been paid at the statutory minimum price fixed by the Central Government i.e. Rs.1063.50 per tonne. The only difference is in the transportation charges incurred in relation to the different villages. The transportation charges incurred, vary as per the distance of village from the location of the sugar factory. Perusal of column No.10 of the Chart shows that each of the agriculturist has been paid at a rate higher than the minimum statutory price, even the amount in excess of statutory minimum price that have 5 been received by the agriculturist vary because of the deduction of actual transport expenses. This has been done by the petitioner as per the agreements entered by the agriculturists with the sugar factory. What is further pertinent to be noted, it is not even alleged that any of the agriculturist who had entered into agreement for deduction of actual transportation charges has made any complaint in that regard to the Commissioner of Sugar. In our opinion, therefore, the Director of Sugar had neither any power nor any justification for making the impugned order. Petition is therefore allowed. The order dated 26.6.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Sugar is set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J) (A.R.JOSHI,J)