FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGBAD. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of | coram, appearance, court’s orders | Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders | WRIT PETITION NO.6170/2008 Rajaram Bhikaji Bhavar .. Petitioner V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respdts. .... ShriS.L.Bhapkar,Adv.for petitioner. Shri S.K.Kadam,A.G.P.for R.1 to 3 Petition dismissed as against R.4. Shri T.B.Bhosale,Adv.for R.5 .... WRIT PETITION NO.6171/2008 Janardhan Bhikaji Bhavar .. Petr. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors..Res ..... Shri S.L.Bhapkar,Adv.for petitioner Shri D.R.Kale,AGP for R.1 to 3. Respondent no.4 served. ShriT.B.Bhosale,Adv.for R.5. .... WRIT PETITION NO.6172/2008 Muktabai Rajaram Bhavar .. Petr. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors..Res .... Shri S.L.Bhapkar,Adv.for petitioner Smt.V.A.Shinde,AGP for R.1 to 3. Respondent no.4 served Shri T.B.Bhosale,Adv.for R.5. .... WRIT PETITION NO.6173/2008 Chhayabai Janardhan Bhavar ..Petr. V/s The State of Maharashtra & Ors..Res .... Shri S.L.Bhapkar,Adv.for petitioner Smt.V.A.Shinde,AGP for R.1 to 3. Respondent no.4 served Shri T.B.Bhosale,Adv.for R.5. .... CORAM : A.P.DESHPANDE & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 7TH JANUARY,2010. 1] This group of petitions, seek writ of mandamus, commanding respondent nos.4 and 5 Sugar factory, to pay the price of sugar- cane, supplied by the petitioners and crushed in the season 2006/07. 2] Notice came to be issued and in response to the same, the affidavit has been filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 viz. State of Maharashtra and Divisional Joint Director (Sugar), wherein it is categorically stated that there is no outstanding amount due and payable by the Karkhana, to the petitioners towards the supply of sugarcane. It is further stated that there were certain outstanding advances and after adjustment of the same, the auditor had certified that nothing is due and receivable by the petitioners. 3] The learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has submitted that a disputed question in regard to a money claim, cannot be a matter of adjudication in a Writ Petition. True it is, that on one hand petitioners are claiming certain amounts as due and receivable, whereas according to the respondents, nothing is due. In that view of the matter, question raised in these group of petitions, cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. However, petitioners would have an alternative remedy in the form of filing of a dispute under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. Petitioners shall be at liberty to have recourse to the said remedy, if so advised. 4] Writ Petitions are summarily dismissed. [N.D.DESHPANDE] [A.P.DESHPANDE] JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp6170-08