1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6417 OF 2007 Vinayak s/o Vishishtha Shinde, R/o-Village Lavul, Tq-Majalgaon, District-Beed. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, 2) The Sugar Commissioner, Sakhar Sankul, Shivajinagar, Pune, 3) The Regional Asstt. Director(Sugar), Regional Office, Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad, 4) The District Collector, Beed, Dist-Beed, 5) The Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Sundarnagar, Telgaon, Dist-Beed, Through its Managing Director, 6) Shri. Prakash Solunke, Member of State Legislative Assembly, 7) The Hon'ble Minister for Co-operation, Rehabilitation & Relief Works, State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri. Sandeep S. Deshmukh Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 7. Shri. D.J. Choudhari Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 28TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioner alleges that his sugar- cane was not harvested during the season 2006-2007. The Petitioner made grievance, through communications, to the Commissioner (Sugar). It is alleged that the Commissioner (Sugar) failed to take stringent action against the Respondent No.5 Sugar Factory. It is further alleged that as the Petitioner’s sugar-cane was not harvested, the Petitioner suffered monetary losses and prejudice is caused to the interest of the Petitioner, who 3 is member of the Respondent No.5 Sugar Factory. 3. The Respondent No.5 Sugar Factory and State, both have filed affidavit in reply. The Managing Director of Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana – Respondent No.5 filed affidavit in reply, wherein the deponent contends that the Government had paid the compensation for the sugar-cane which could not be harvested. The deponent further contended that the Panchanama was drawn by the Government Authorities and it was noticed that 2.45 hectors sugar-cane of the Petitioner could not be harvested. The Respondent No.5 Sugar Factory had harvested 10.80 hectors sugar-cane of the Petitioner. This had happened due to circumstances beyond control of Sugar Factory, according to the deponent. The claim of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.4,33,500/- was disputed in view of the facts narrated in the reply by the Managing Director. 4. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf 4 of the State by the Joint Director (Sugar), the deponent contends that the State Government had taken measures in respect of persons whose sugar- cane could not be harvested during the season 2006-2007. The State Government had taken a decision to sanction a subsidy of Rs.25,000/- per Hector to the farmers for the sugar-cane which remained standing without crushing in the season 2006-2007. Through-out the State, the Government has disbursed Rs.131.89 crores to the persons identically situated like the Petitioner. It is admitted that the Petitioner is a share holder member of Respondent No.5 Sugar Factory who executed an agreement with Respondent No.5 to supply sugar-cane from the land holding of 16 acres. According to the deponent, one of the factor was labour problem due to which the entire sugar-cane of the Petitioner could not be harvested. According to the deponent, required compensation was granted to the Petitioner. 5. We find that the Commissioner (Sugar) had 5 also written letter to the Respondent No.5 to take steps calling for information, which was provided by the Sugar Factory. 6. In the light of the reply filed, we find that in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, the reliefs prayed for by the Petitioner can not be granted. In case the Petitioner still has a case to proceed against the Respondents in respect of the alleged loss which the Petitioner is said to have incurred and the inaction of the Respondent No.5; then the Petitioner may adopt alternate remedies as permissible in law to the Petitioner. The Writ Petition stands rejected. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JUNE10/wp6417.07