1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7634 OF 2009 Harneshwar Agro Products, Power & Yeast (I) Ltd., .. Petitioners. V/s. The Sugar Commissioner, Pune & Ors., .. Respondents. Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni a/w.Mr.A.P.Kulkarni,for the Petitioners. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM: S.B.MHASE & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED: 15th SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner can be disposed of by giving certain directions to the Respondents. The Petitioner has approached the Respondent No.1 for directions to grant permission for crushing sugarcane for the crushing season 2008-2009 at its Factory situated at Muktainagar, Post-Kalas, Taluka Indapur, Dist. Pune. Thereafter, Petitioner has made an application on 13 th September, 2008 to Respondent Commissioner of Sugar to get srj/- 2 licence for crushing season 2008-2009. The said application required to be disposed off by the Commissioner of Sugar prior to commencement of crushing season. However, unfortunately, the said application was not considered prior to the commencement of crushing season and we are told across the bar that once the date was fixed in the month of April, 2009 and thereafter the matter has been postponed to uncertain dates. The Commissioner of Sugar should have realized that a huge amount is invested by the Petitioner and, therefore, should have decided the claim of the Petitioner on merits. In our views, keeping such applications pending for years together, thereby not exercising the powers delegated to authority, reflects adversely on the functioning of the said authority. This shows that the authority is not desirous of exercising the powers for the reasons best known to it, otherwise the authority should have disposed of the said application prior to the commencement of the crushing season so that said allegations cannot be developed against the sub-authority. The authority should also realize that in a developing country like India, a huge investment has been done by the parties for manufacturing sugar and when this has been treated as one of the essential commodity, for which the Government has srj/- 3 granted subsidy and appointed the Commissioner of Sugar to oversee the same, so that sufficient sugar is available in the market. We do not desire to go into the reasons as to why the Commissioner has not disposed of the application, however the fact remains that in failing to dispose of the application, the Commissioner has thereby failed to exercise the powers vested in him by the statute. 3. Now, crushing season of 2009 is likely to commence sometime between October and November. Therefore, it is necessary for the Respondent Commissioner of Sugar to dispose of the Application if filed by the Petitioner for said crushing season. Suffice, to note that the Learned Counsel for the State Mr.Gokhale very fairly submits that if any application is made for the crushing season 2009-2010 that will be disposed of on its merits prior to starting of the crushing season. The statement is accepted. We, therefore, direct Respondent Commissioner of Sugar to dispose of the application dated 13 th September, 2008 for the crushing season of 2008-2009, and fresh application, if any, made by the Petitioner for the year 2009-2010, on its merits, prior to the commencement of the crushing season as stated by the Learned A.G.P. srj/- 4 4. The application for crushing season of 2009-2010, if any, to be made by the Petitioner, the same shall made addressed to the Commissioner of Sugar, within eight weeks from date. The Commissioner of Sugar, thereafter, to hear all the concerned parties including the party, who has already objected to the earlier application, and he shall pass an order dealing with each and every point raised by the Petitioner and the objector or any other point which is suo motu raised by the Commissioner. If the Commissioner has any objection, he will let it be known to the Petitioner well in advance, so that the Petitioner shall have an opportunity to reply to the said objection. For the said purposes, hearing of the matter is required to be on done on a day to day basis. The Commissioner of Sugar should not excuse himself on the ground of the code of conduct, election duty etc., and would see to it that the instant order is complied with in the time presented by this order. 5. In the light of the above, the Petition to stand disposed of. (R.M.SAVANT,J.) (S.B.MHASE,J.) srj/- 5 srj/-