1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4560 OF 1994. Damodhar S/o Haribhau Baviskar, Age 48 years, Occ.Agriculturist, R/o Chinchpur, Tq. Sillod, Dist.Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Chairman, Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Ltd.,Bhavan Maniknagar, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. 3. The Managing Director, Siddheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Bhavan- Maniknagar, Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad. 4. The Director of Sugar, Pune. 5. The Dy.Director of Sugar, Kranti Chowk, Aurangabad. 6. The Collector, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.N.N.Shinde, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.G.Patil, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the Respondent Nos.1,4 to 6. Mr.A.D.Rajput, advocate holding for 2 Mr.R.N.Dhorde, advocate for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 23.06.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. By the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the decision in refusing to pay the amount of price of the sugarcane and compensation to the petitioner. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is a Member of the Respondent No.2 Karkhana. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had sown sugarcane crop in his field and that the Respondents were bound to harvest the said crop and pay the price of the said sugarcane to the petitioner. The petitioner submits that since the sugarcane was not harvested from his field from Gat No.155, he made various representations to the Respondent Karkhana which went unheard. He submits that 3 petitioner has suffered huge losses on account of non-harvesting of the said crop. The petitioner also requested for compensation, the same is also not paid. Hence, the present petition. 3. Mr.Shinde, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is belonging to a political party which was opposed to the then Chairman Mr.Palodkar, the petitioner has been denied his claim. It is submitted that the petitioner was required to contest the elections against Mr.Manikrao Palodkar, not only in Parliament/Legislative Assembly but also against his panel in the Sugarcane Karkhana and aggrieved thereby the compensation was not paid to the petitioner. He submits that from the documentary evidence, the petitioner has established his claim and as such the compensation ought to have been awarded to him of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lacs). 4. Mr.Rajput, learned counsel holding for Mr.Dhorde, on the contrary, submits that the 4 petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of suppression. He submits that though an amount of Rs.12,500/- (Rupees twelve thousand five hundred) was paid towards compensation but the said fact is not mentioned in the petition. He further submits that the allegations regarding bias is also without substance inasmuch as crop from Gat No.155 was already harvested by the Karkhana and, therefore, the allegation in that respect is without any substance. 4. The claim of the petitioner pertains to the sugarcane crop which was required to be harvested in the year 1989. The petition is filed in the year 1994 and thus if the petitioner would have filed the suit claiming the said compensation in the Court of ordinary Civil jurisdiction, the said claim would have been barred by limitation. The Respondent Corporation has filed affidavit-in-reply stating that due to heavy rains the tractor could not be taken to the field of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner was requested to bring his crop after harvesting on the road from where it was to be 5 collected. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner orally states that said crop was brought on the road and inspite of that Karkhana did not get the same, this fact is seriously disputed by the Respondent Karkhana. It can be further seen that various averments of facts which have been made by the petitioner are seriously disputed by filing affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the Respondent. 5. The Apex Court in "D.L.F. Housing Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Delhi Municipal Corporation and others" AIR 1976 Supreme Court 386, has held that where petition involves various disputed questions of fact, it is not permissible for this Court to go into this aspect inasmuch as such disputes can not be decided without the parties leading the evidence in support of their rival claims. Admittedly, the present claim is based on the claim of damages and for ascertaining as to what damages are actually suffered by the petitioner, it is not possible for this Court to do so, without permitting the parties to lead evidence in 6 support of their rival claims. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, such an exercise would not be permissible for us while exercising our extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In so far as the contention of the petitioner regarding the action being malafide at the instance of Mr.Manikrao Palodkar, since the petitioner had contested the election against him and his group is concerned, it is settled law that when a party attributes malafides, the said allegations can not be heard unless a party against whom the allegations are made is impleaded as party Respondent in his personal capacity and given an opportunity to defend him. 6. In that view of the matter, the petition being found without substance is, therefore, dismissed. Rule discharged. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp456094 7