1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5180 of 2010 (Vaishnavi Sugar India Ltd. v. Pradum V. Mhaske and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri M.G. Sarda, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri S.G. Dodya, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 18. Smt. Rashi Deshpande, AGP for Respondent Nos.19 and 20. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 13 th July, 2011 This petition challenges the order dated 19-4-2010 passed by the Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State, Pune, fixing the price of sugarcane payable to the sugarcane growers at the rate of Rs.900/- per MT. The challenge is on the ground that the petitioner is not being permitted to deduct an amount required for transportation of sugarcane during the season 2006-2007 from the minimum rate of Rs.900/- determined. The reliance is placed upon Proviso (i) to Clause 3-A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. The perusal of the order impugned shows that it merely determines the minimum price of sugarcane payable at the rate of Rs.900/- per MT. The issue of rebate, as envisaged by Proviso (i) to Clause 3-A of the said Order, was not raised before the Commissioner of Sugar. It is urged that the reliance was placed 2 on the undated communication, said to have been issued by the Chairman of the sugar factory, whereby he had agreed to bear the expenses of transportation for the season 2006-2007. Shri Sarda, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the dispute was raised as to the authenticity of the said communication, which has not been considered by the Commissioner of Sugar. Proviso (i) to Clause 3-A of the said Order states that the rebate can be granted if it is fixed by the Central Government having regard to the actual cost of transportation in the area, after consultation with such body or bodies as it may deem fit, by notification in the official Gazette, from time to time and the owner shall accordingly make the rebate. There is nothing placed on record to show that the requirement of the said proviso has been complied with. In view of above, there is no substance in this petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Judge pdl