IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 14621 of 2001 Between: Nizam Sugar Factory Cane Growers Association, Rep. by its President, (Regd.No. 3035/97), Mambojipally, Medak District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The Nizam Sugar Factory, Through its Managing Director, at Shakkar Bhavan, Near L.B.Stadium, Hyderabad. 2 The General Manager, Nizam Sugar Factory, Mambojipally Unit at Mambojipally, Medak District. 3 The Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioer, Gandhi Bhavan, Hyderabad. .....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 an appropriate writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: (i) declaring the action of the respondents in not paying the cane growers their due price and paying the amounts after the statutory period as illegal, arbitrary; (ii) direct the respondents to make payments towards the cane supplied by the petitioner forthwith by paying interest for the year 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 as contemplated under Sec.19 (2) (a) of A.P. Sugar Cane Regulation of supply and purchase Act, 1961 on delayed payments. (iii Award Costs; and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.SUDERSHAN REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : MR.N.VASUDEVA REDDY FOR R The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN Writ Petition No. 14621 of 2001 Order: The petitioner is an association of cane growers, which was required to supply sugar cane exclusively to Nizam Sugar Factory, since their lands fell within the factory zone. Their grievance in this writ petition is that, while payment for the cane supplied by them was required to be paid within 14 days of delivery, there was an inordinate delay on the part of the ﬁrst respondent in doing so and that, under Section 19 (2-A) of the A.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), the price of the cane remaining unpaid on the expiration of the period speciﬁed in Sub-section (2) shall carry interest at ﬁfteen per cent per annum from the date of delivery of cane and that it shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. While Sri G. Madhusudhan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, would emphasise that this statutory protection conferred on the sugarcane farmers entitled them for a mandamus from this Court directing the ﬁrst respondent to forthwith pay interest as stipulated under Section 19(2-A) of the Act, Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the ﬁrst respondent, on the other hand, would submit that despite its ﬁnancial sickness, the ﬁrst respondent had paid the principal amount even prior to the ﬁling of the present writ petition by 15.07.2001. Learned Standing Counsel would further state that the petitioners herein were beneﬁted on account of the state advisory cane price and other incentives being paid by the ﬁrst respondent which beneﬁted them ﬁnancially and that they were far better placed than the sugarcane suppliers of other private and cooperative sugarcane mills. Learned counsel would submit that the Company is almost defunct, that the petitioner had failed to furnish any details whatsoever as to the particulars of the farmers to whom payment towards interest is being sought for, the details of actual supplies made and the principal amount received by them etc. Learned counsel would state that nearly 8 years have elapsed since the ﬁling of the writ petition and, as all the units of the ﬁrst respondent have been sold/privatized, it may not be possible for the ﬁrst respondent to trace the records to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the claims of the petitioners. While the submission made by Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the ﬁrst respondent, cannot be said to be without merit, it cannot also be lost sight of that the claim made by the petitioner, espousing the cause of sugarcane farmers, is for violation of the statutory provision of Section 19(2-A) of Act No. XLV of 1961. It needs no reiteration that a mandamus can be issued for violation of a statutory provision. In similar circumstances, this Court, in W.P. No. 23772 of 1997 dated 24.09.2007, observed thus: “………Interest of Justice would be met by directing the petitioner herein to make an appropriate representation to the respondents giving the details of the cane growers and the amounts due to each of such growers from the respondents. The respondents shall consider and verify the contents of the representation to be made by the petitioner and decide the matter. On veriﬁcation, if it is found that any amounts are liable to be paid by the respondents to the growers, the same shall be paid in accordance with law to each of the cane growers within three months from the date of receipt of the representation to be made by the petitioner.” There shall be a similar order in this case also. The petitioner herein shall make a representation, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, furnishing details of the list of members, the quantity of sugarcane supplied with relevant dates, the date of payment of the principal and the date from which interest is due to each sugarcane farmer separately. The ﬁrst respondent shall, after verifying the records and ensuring that the claims made by the petitioner are borne out by the records, make payment in accordance with law to each of the individual cane grower within a period of four months from the date of receipt of their representation. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. __________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date: 15.11.2008 Nsr