IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 421 OF 2004 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 09.01.2004 in WP No. 645 of 2004 on the file of the High Court.) Between: The Nizamabad Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited, Nizamabad Sarangapur, Rep. By Sri Bantu Rajeshwar ..... APPELLANT AND Government of Andhra Pradesh, Public Enterprises Department Implementation Secretariat, Secretariat, Hyderabad Rep. By its Principal Secretary/Chairman and others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari) Aggrieved by the order dated 09.01.2004 made in W.P. No.645 of 2004 dismissing the writ petition filed for waiving an amount of Rs.990.54 lakhs covered by GO Ms. No. 383 Industries & Commerce (Sugar) Department dated 10.12.1999, being the Differential Cane Price Loans sanctioned by the Government for the years 1982-83 to 1985-86 including interest/penal interest and to reimburse a total amount of Rs.4,355.50 lakhs incurred by the Nizamabad Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited, Nizamabad, towards the differential cane price for the period 1986-87 to 2000-2001, the writ petitioner preferred the present Writ Appeal. The second respondent herein in the name of State Advisory Price has increased the sugarcane price in the year 1982 by Rs.55/- per metric tonne in addition to the Statutory Minimum Price fixed by the Central Government and the appellant was directed to pay the said amount to the cane growers. The case of the appellant is that in terms of Clause 3 of the Sugar Cane Control Order, 1966, it is the Central Government which is competent to fix the minimum price for sugarcane, purchase from the growers and the second respondent has no power to fix the State Advisory Price. To meet such extra financial implication for payment to farmers due to State Advisory Price, the Government has sanctioned amounts in the name of Differential Cane Price Loan and continued till 1996 and thereafter it discontinued as the sugar factory was getting profits, by which time the appellant had paid an amount of Rs.44.00 crores to the farmer towards Differential Cane Price Loan. It is case of the appellant that as per Clause 5(2) of the Control Order, Cooperative Sugar Factory is exempted from payment of any additional amount towards State Advisory Price over and above the Statutory Minimum Price and sought for reimbursement of Rs.44.00 it paid to the farmers. After a decade and half, the Government issued GO Ms. No. 383 Industries & Commerce (Sugar) Department dated 10.12.1999 converting the amount advanced towards State Advisory Price into equity contribution for the Government, which is assailed contending that conversion of Differential Cane Price Loan amount into equity is illegal and contrary to the judgment of a Division Bench in Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. K.C.P. Sugar & Industries ([1]). It is contended before the learned Single Judge that the questions, which the appellant sought to raise, were already answered in W.P. No. 23115 of 2003 dated 24.11.2003 and, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limini. The learned Single Judge referring to the judgment in W.P. No.23115 of 2003 dated 24.11.2003 and extracting his judgment on four folds, dismissed the writ petition inasmuch as the questions which the appellant sought to contend in the present writ petition, were already decided by him. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Appeal is filed inter alia contending that nothing prevented the appellant to challenge GO Ms. No. 376 dated 10.12.1999 since the petitioner in W.P. No. 23115 of 2003 are different and the said W.P. assailed the vires of Section 12-A of the Act and in the present writ petition, G.O. is under challenge. A cursory look at the order passed in W.P. No. 23115 of 2003 dated 24.11.2003 shows that the learned Single Judge adverting to the said G.O. has observed that pursuant to GO Ms.No. 376 dated 10.12.1999, many farmers who were otherwise liable to refund the State Advisory Price were left alone in the public interest and if the contention of the petitioner is accepted, it would cause great hardship and prejudice to large number of sugarcane farmers who might be compelled to refund the amounts paid towards equity. Apart from these observations, the learned Single Judge negatived the relief sought for the appellant on more than three counts. It is further to be observed that there is no material placed before this court by the appellant – factory to show that either it requested the Government to waive the State Advisory Price or that they had an agreement with the Government to waive such amount. Therefore, at any rate, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having gone through the impugned order, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well- considered order. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari __________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar December 15, 2009 MAS. [1] 2001(3) ALT 735 (DB)