IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.28800 of 2009 Between: KBD Sugar & Distilleries Limited … Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep.by its Secretary, Industries and Commerce (Sugar) Department Secretariat, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH W.P. No.28800 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to act in accordance with law, take appropriate action and ensure that the sugarcane growers/farmers in the factory zone of the petitioner sugar factory self/supply the sugarcane grown by them exclusively to the petitioner sugar factory without selling the same to the jiggery units and also forbid the operation of these unauthorized jiggery crushers in their zone area and grant such other relief as it deems fit in the circumstances of the case. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that it is public limited company engaged in manufacture and sale of sugar, having its factory at Mudipapanapalle Village, Sugalimitta Post, Punganur, Chittoor District. For manufacture of sugar, sugarcane is the raw material, and it is a seasonal activity. The planted machinery of the petitioner has the crushing capacity of 2500 tonnes per day. The Government of India, in exercise of its power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, had promulgated Sugarcane Control Order, 1966, which regulates the sale of sugarcane by the growers. The state Legislature had also enacted the A.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961, for regulation of supply and purchase of sugarcane required for use in Sugar factories and Kandasari units. Further, the said Act has provided for the mechanism of earmarking factory zones under Section 15 and compelling the corresponding factory to purchase the sugarcane from the growers of the factory zone and payment of the price to the growers. The scheme of the Act is to allot a factory zone to every sugar factory and thereafter ensure that the sugarcane grown in the said factory zone is exclusively utilized by that sugar factory only. Thus, the grower has no choice to sell sugarcane to anybody other than the sugar factory within whose factory zone, the sugarcane is grown. It is further submitted that the factory zone of the petitioner sugar factory consists of 3698 villages in 26 mandals and the normal yield of sugarcane on an average for the year in about 20 to 22 metric tones per acre. The crushing capacity of the petitioner is higher than the available quantity of sugarcane from out of the factory zone allocated to the petitioner. The petitioner is also taking steps for extension/enlargement of its factory zone by including some more villages or mandals and the said exercise is pending with the 2nd respondent. Since, the petitioner has been specifying lesser quantity of sugarcane from the growers, it has caused enquiries to know about the actual yield of sugarcane and thus the petitioner came to know that though the quantity of sugarcane grown is far higher, the quantity of sugarcane entrusted to the petitioner by the farmers is far lesser due to the reason that some of the farmers are selling away the sugarcane to the jiggery manufacturing units which can be established and shifted from place to place. The jiggery manufacturing establishments are persuading the farmers to sell sugarcane through them at a marginally higher rate than the rate prescribed by the State at which, the petitioner sugar factory has been purchasing the sugarcane and thus the farmers are getting tempted and lured to part with the sugarcane to the jiggery manufacturing units and as a result, the petitioner is suffering the dearth of sugarcane in the present crushing season. It is further submitted that the omission ‘jiggery’ from the definition of crusher under the Control Order has no impact on the enforcement of the provisions of the State Act but the enforcing authorities under the Act are not educating the farmers to sell the sugarcane through the concerned sugar factory alone and thus there is a failure of discharge of their duties imposed by the State Act. The resultant situation is that the provisions of the Act are violated and sugarcane so sold out is ultimately utilized for the purpose of jiggery or not. This situation has given rise to a total collapse of the enforcement of the provisions of the Act and unless the concerned authorities are whipped by this Court, it may lead to a situation that the sugar factories may not have supply of sugarcane at all and the other states where jiggery is used and consumed more that sugar would be taking the advantage of the sugarcane grown in the state. Thus, the respondents authorities are obligated to enforce the provisions of the Act and to take steps to see that the farmers of the corresponding factory zone sell the sugarcane to the sugar factory exclusively without diverting the same as sale to jiggery units or the like. It is also submitted that the petitioner has the information that about 1490 jiggery crushers are operating in their allocated zone area and an aggregate quantity of more that 4500 metric tones of sugarcane is being diverted to authorized jiggery crushers every day crushing the petitioner irreparable loss. Hence, the present writ petition. The main grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that though the relevant Act has provided for the mechanism of earmarking factory zones and the scheme of the Act is to allot a factory zone to every sugar factory and thereafter ensure that the sugarcane grown in the said factory zone is exclusively utilized by the sugar factory, the respondent authorities are not taking proper action. Further, it is obligation on the part of the authorities under the provisions of the Act referred to above to see that the provisions of the law are implemented and sugarcane growers to sell their product to the sugar factory only. But contrary to the same, at the instance of the jiggery manufacturing units, the farmers are selling away their products to them, which is prohibited under law, for which, the authorities are not taking any action in this regard. On a perusal of the entire affidavit, filed by the petitioner, no where it has been mentioned that he made some representation to the respondent authorities and the respondent authorities are not taking any action. In the absence of any representation, I am of the opinion that the petitioner ought to have made a representation to the authorities concerned under the Act, so as to enabling them to notice the problem being faced by the petitioner and to take necessary action thereof. No material has been placed before this Court for perusal, so as to grant any positive relief in this matter. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that this writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner can make appropriate representation to the appropriate authority explaining the problem of the petitioner with facts and figures and necessary material, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and thereupon, the authorities shall consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders. With the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 01.07.2010 LSK