IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10800 of 2010 1. ARVIND KUMAR S/O LATE INDRASAN PRASAD R/O VILL.- SATAHA,P.O.- NOUWADIH, P.S.- PAHARPUR, DISTT.- EAST CHAMPARAN,HAVINGITS HEAD OFFICE AT SANT KABIR PATH, BANUCHAPRA,P.O+P.S.BETTIAH, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN --- petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE CANE COMMISSIONER, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SUGARCANE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE CANE OFFICER, MOTIHARI, EAST CHAMPARAN 5. M/S PRASAD REFRIGERATION AND AGRO INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. SANT KABIR PATH, BANU CHAPRA, P.O. + P.S.- BETTIAH, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN REPRESENTED THROUGH SMT. PRATIMA PRASAD, W/O SHRI YOGENDRA PRASAD, S/O CALLED MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY, R/O S 3 D-34, DEFENCE COLONY, CLEMENT TOWN, DEHRADUN, UTTARANCHAL (INDIA) – 248001-----------------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Rajeev Ranjan, Advocate For the respondents :Mr.Arshad Alam, SC IV Mr.Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, AC to SC IV ----- 2. 20.7.2010 The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 9.11.2009, communicated through the letter dated 21.4.2010, passed by respondent No.2, the Cane Commissioner, Bihar by which he has rejected the application of the petitioner for issuing the crushing licence of the Company including his name in the same. The petitioner claims that he is the Managing Director of M/s. Prasad Refrigeration and Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1946 having its registered office in the State of Bihar. It is 2 the stand of the petitioner that earlier the crushing licence was being issued to the said Company giving the name of the petitioner but by letter dated 26.6.2009 the same was issued in the name of the Manager of the Company. Aggrieved by the said change the petitioner filed the application before the Cane Commissioner. By the impugned order dated 9.11.2009 the Cane Commissioner held that the licence was being issued to the Company and in view of the internal differences and dispute between the management and shareholders of the Company, it has been issued in the name of the Manager of the Company. He has further held that such differences/ dispute as to who is the real Managing Director is outside the purview and jurisdiction of the Cane Commissioner and for the said reason he has rejected the application of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the earlier licence was being issued to the Company including the name of the petitioner therein there is no justification in changing the same as the petitioner continues to be the Managing Director. On a perusal of the statements made in the writ petition and those contained in the impugned order it is 3 evident that the petitioner has raised a dispute which essentially pertains to the management of the Company deciding which is outside the purview of the Cane Commissioner. In that view of the matter, the issuance of the crushing license of the Company in the designation of the Manager instead of in the name of a particular person does not appear to be unjustified. In the above circumstances, the writ application being devoid of merit is dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/