1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3222 OF 2010 Indian Sugar Manufacturing Company Ltd. ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Sugandh B.Deshmukh for Petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, A.G.P. for Respondents. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED:- APRIL 16, 2010. P.C. 1. Not on Board. Upon mentioning, taken on Board. 2. The Petitioner through Counsel submits that the Petitioner would be content if the Court were to grant relief in terms of prayer clause (A). That relief reads thus: “[A] That this Honourable Court be pleased to issue a writ mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950, directing the Respondent No.2, to decide the Application for Aerial Distance Certificate, contemplated by Rule 6(b) of the Sugarcane (Control) [Amendment] Order, 2006, strictly in accordance with the Chronological Order, in which the Applications are received and without breaking, the Chronological Order.” 2 3. In our opinion, the direction sought by the Petitioner is a benign relief which the Authority is obliged to observe while deciding the concerned Application for Aerial Distance Certificate under statutory power under Sugarcane (Control) Order. 4. Notably, learned A.G.P. on behalf of the Respondents, in all fairness, submits that the Authorities are bound to follow the regime specified in Sugarcane (Control) Order and cannot give preference to some other Applicant not in order of chronology. In the circumstances, Petition is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A). 5. Petition disposed of on the above terms. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.) 3