wp6659.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6659 OF 2010 Jai Mahesh Sugar Industries Ltd., Majalgaon, Dist-Beed, Through its authorized signatory, Shri. Ashok Ramrao Pawar, General Manager. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) Union of India, Through its Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Department of Food and Public Distribution, Krushi Bhavan, New Delhi-110 001 and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. A.A. Nimbalkar Advocate h/f. Shri. V.D. Salunke Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. Alok Sharma, Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Shri. S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. ... wp6659.10 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 19TH JANUARY, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner seeks directions to the Respondents to release free sale sugar stock and allow them to sale free sale sugar stock in the open market. Last application filed by the Petitioner to the Chief Director (Sugar), Government of India was on 11th December, 2009. 3. Shri. Alok Sharma, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 placed on record a chart showing the quantity of non-levy (free sale) releases in respect of the Petitioner industry from October, 2009 to January, 2011. The same is taken on record and marked as 'X' for identification. Shri. Alok Sharma, learned counsel wp6659.10 3 placed reliance on the Judgment dated 9th September, 2008, in Writ Petition No.3896 of 2008 in the case of Rameshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., vs. the Union of India and others, delivered by the Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: F.I. REBELLO AND K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ.). Paragraph No.8 of the said Judgment reads as under: "8. There is no challenge to the policy decision of the Central Government by petitioners, as the policy decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or capricious or without any logic. The extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Court under Art. 226 cannot be invoked to travel against the provisions of Section 3 (sub-section (1) (3D and 3E) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (as amended on 1st June, 2003) read with clauses 4 and 5 of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966, coupled with as they are not in wp6659.10 4 violation of the fundamental rights of trade, as mandated under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. We reiterate, the Central Government has unbriddled powers to restrict the sale of sugar under the Statute, and, unless, it is pointed out that such policy is not in the larger interest of the public, we do not wish to interfere with statutory powers of the Central Government." 3. The Respondent - Government of India regulates the allotment of quota for free sale sugar to be sold in open market, in exercise of powers conferred under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 4. In the facts of the case, we find that no interference is called for in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The Writ Petition is dismissed. wp6659.10 5 5. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this stage, makes a request that the Petitioner would file fresh representation/application to the Central Government. The Petitioner is entitled to file the same. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JAN11/wp6659.10