IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 11715 of 2001 Between: M/s. Kakatiya Cement Sugar & Industries Ltd.,Sugar Division Rep. by its Managing Director Sri P. Venkateshwarlu, R/o. 1-10-140/1, 'GURUKRUPA'. Ashok Nagar, HYDERABAD --- 500 020. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary, Industries & Commerce (Sugar Department--, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Director of Sugar & Cane Commissioner, Government of Andhra Pradesh, M.J. Road, Hyderabad. 3 Assistant Cane Commissioner & Arbitrary, Vuyyur, KRISHNA DISTRICT. 4 K. Venkateshwar Rao, S/o. Rathaiah, Major, R/o. Gopalapuram, Hamlet Polisettipadu, A. Konderu Mandal, Krishna District. 5 K. Sambasiva Rao,, S/o. Venkatewara Rao, R/o. Gopalapuram, Hamlet Polisettipadu, A. Konderu Mandal, Krishna District. 6 K. Chinnabbai, S/o. Undavaiah, major, R/o. Gopalapuram, Hamlet Polisettipadu, A. Konderu Mandal, Krishna District. 7 K. Arun Kumar, S/o. Madhavaiah, Major, R/o. Gopalapuram, Hamlet Polisettipadu, A. Konderu Mandal, Krishna District. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the order passed by the 1st respondent authority in G.O.Rt.No.177, dt. 28-2-2001 confirming the orders of the 2nd respondent, the Director of Sugar & Cane Commissioner, in Proceedings No. C2/19961.95, dt. 24/8/99, as modifying the order of the 3rd Respondent, Assistant Cane Commissioner & Arbitrator, Vuyyur, dt. 17/8/98, as wholly illegal, unjust, unwarranted, opposed to principles of natural justice and hit by laches and consequently set aside the same by dismissing the petitioner dt. 27.5.95 of the respondents 4 to 7 herein, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.Y.JAGAN MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR INDUSTRIES & COMMERCE The Court made the following: ORAL ORDER: The petitioner assails herein the order of the first respondent in G.O.Rt.No.177 Industries and Commerce (Sugar) Department dated 28-02-2001 (for short ‘the G.O.’) confirming the orders of the second respondent in RC.No. C2/19961/95 dated 24-08-1999. The brief facts relevant to the lis are: The petitioner is a Sugar crushing industry. The petitioner is M/s. Kailash Sugars and Chemicals Limited (for short ‘the Sugar industry’), to which the respondent Nos.4 to 7—sugar cane growers exclusive supply their produce. The Sugar industry went into economic distress and was brought before the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. In the process of rehabilitation of the Sugar industry, the petitioner took over the estates and juristic entity of the Sugar industry and therefore all the assets and liabilities. The respondent Nos. 4 to 7 laid a claim before the third respondent, the Assistant Cane Commissioner and Arbitrator under the provisions of the A.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961 (A.P. Act XLV of 1961) and the A.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1961 urging two grievances (a) that the factory should have started operations on 20-03-1992 and instead commenced operations on 29-03-1992 during the crushing season 1991-92 as a result of which the sugarcane growers sustained loss in the yield on account of the diminishing of the juice content in the cane supplied; and (b) that there was short remittance of 83.639 metric tonnes at the rate of Rs.350-00 per metric tonne as a consequence of the above delay and therefore they are entitled to be compensated in an amount of Rs.29,273-65. It requires to be noticed that before applying to the third respondent under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the petitioners laid a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Khammam, which was rejected. The third respondent/arbitrator by the order dated 17-08-1998 rejected the claim of respondent Nos 4 to 7 recording short remittance but for the delay ordered payment of Rs.5,000-00 in lump sum. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner-company appealed to the second respondent-appellate authority – The Director of Sugar & Cane Commissioner, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 preferred no appeal. The second respondent-appellate authority by the order dated 24-08-1999 rejected the appeal and decreed the claim of the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 and awarded them an amount of Rs.29,273-65. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred a further appeal by way of second appeal to the first respondent-Government which was rejected by the order dated 28-02-2001, in G.O.Rt.No.177 Industries and Commerce (Sugar) Department dated: 28-02-2001. As is apparent from the concurrent conclusions of respondent Nos. 2 and 1, there was an agreement between respondent Nos. 4 to 7 on the one hand and the petitioner on the other, duly signed on behalf of two parties. In terms of this agreement the crushing operations by the company must commence from 20-03-1992. Failure to fulfill any of the conditions under the agreement would entitle the cane growers to compensation irrespective of the yield per acre, at Rs.350-00 per tonne. On the admitted factual scenario and in the light of the agreed conditions between the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 4 to 7, the factory operations ought to have been commenced from 20-03-1992. This did not happen. There was thus a violation and transgression of the conditions of agreement. On such violation, respondent Nos. 4 to 7 are entitled to compensation at Rs.350-00 per tonne, irrespective of the yield per acre. It is also not disputed that the quantification of this obligation of the petitioner comes to Rs.29,293-65. The orders of the respondent No.2-appellate authority dated 24-08-1999, which were confirmed by the first respondent by the order in G.O.Rt. No.177, is therefore an order in conformity with the obligations of the petitioner qua the agreement with the respondent Nos. 4 to 7. There is therefore no case made out for grant of relief in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 25-03-2008 Pvks/*