hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4800 OF 2010 Karmayogi Shankarraoji Patil Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Mr. Sanjeev P. Kadam for Petitioner. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, A.G.P. For R. Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. V.G. Chichalikar for R. No. 3 in person for Vasantdada Sugar Institute. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATED : JULY 06, 2010 P.C. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent. The writ petition is directed against he order/communication dated 10.5.2010 issued by Vasant Dada Sugar Institute whereby the Petitioner is informed that his application dated 4.5.2010 for increasing the crushing capacity of the crusher has been rejected. The counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner Sugar Factory was established in the year 1984. The Petitioner’s crushing capacity has been increased during the last few years. The sugar can cultivation and production has also been increased. Petitioner crushed about 12,50,000 metric tonnes sugar during the crushing season till 15th June, 2010. The counsel for the Petitioner states that Petitioner is desirous of increasing his crushing capacity and therefore, submitted an application dated 4.5.2010 to Respondent No. 3 seeking permission for replacement of head stock in order to increase the crushing capacity of the crusher of the Petitioner sugar factory. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the said application has been rejected by the authority vide impugned communication dated 10.5.2010, in view of the order passed by this court in PIL No. 20 of 2006. It is submitted that the order passed in the said PIL puts a ban for grant of permission for establishment of new sugar factory and does not cover the case of the Petitioner. It is contended that so far as the issue involved in the present petition is concerned, the same is squarely covered by the decision of this court dated 25.2.1010 rendered in Writ Petition No. 1392 of 2010. The relevant observations are in Para 6 of the said order which reads thus : “6. It is thus clear that the opinion of the Law and Judiciary Department that in view of the orders mentioned in that opinion passed by this Court in PIL No. 20 of 2006 existing sugar factory cannot increase the production capacity, is absolutely wrong and that also renders the order of the Commissioner of Sugar dated 8th September, 2009 erroneous and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside........” The learned counsel has submitted that in view of the above referred decision of this court, the impugned order may be quashed and set aside and Respondent No. 3 may be directed to reconsider the issue afresh in accordance with Law. The Assistant Government Pleader does not dispute the factual and legal aspect of the matter including the fact that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the decision of this court dated 25.2.2010 rendered in Writ Petition No. 1392 of 2010. We have considered the contentions advanced by the respective counsel. Since it is not in dispute that the issue is covered by the decision of this court, we set aside the impugned communication in view of the said decision and remand the matter back to Respondent No. 3 to reconsider the issue afresh in accordance with law and procedure applicable in this regard keeping in view the decision dated 25.2.2010 of this court in Writ Petition No. 1392 of 2010 and pass the order as early as possible. Writ Petition disposed of. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.) (D.D. SINHA,J.)