- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5247 OF 2002 ... Saibaba Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd. ..Petitioner v/s. Union of India & ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.S.N.Gorwadkar for the Petitioner. Mr.A.H.Palekar, AGP for State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.M.KANADE, JJ. DATED: 15TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C.: 1. The Petitioner by this petition challenges the order dated 28-5-2001 issued by the Government of - 2 - Maharashtra asking the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.3,85,844/- and an amount of Rs.1,62,324/-. 2. According to the Petitioner, the Petitioner is running a Flour Mill. A scheme was formulated by the Government, whereunder the Flour Mills were to be supplied wheat at the rate of Rs.450/- per quintal with an understanding that the Government will be given back the flour at the decided rate. So far as the Petitioner is concerned, he was allotted 1250 MT of wheat. The Petitioner admittedly received 1250 MT of wheat. Out of that wheat, he crushed the wheat for supply the flour to the Government. But the Government did not buy the flour. He was permitted to sell it. But at that time 233.500 metric tonnes of wheat was still in stock with the Petitioner, which was not crushed by him. But the Government permitted him to deal with that stock in the manner he desired. But the Government wanted to recover Rs.173/- per quintal for the wheat which was not used for the scheme, because that wheat was supplied to the Petitioner at the concessional rate. The Government was also to recover Rs.18 per gunny bag for the balance bags. - 3 - 3. This order was challenged in this Court by filing Writ Petition No.1546 of 2001 and other Writ Petitions. It appears that this court directed the Government to hear the Petitioner and make an order. Accordingly, the State Government heard the Petitioner and made an order dated 31st July, 2002 confirming its decision. Therefore, by this petition the Petitioner challenges not only the order dated 28th May, 2001, but also the order dated 31st July, 2002 passed by the State Government. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. It is not the case of the Petitioner that on 28th May, 2001 when the order was made he was not in possession of 220.033 MT of wheat, which was uncrushed and which was received by him at the concessional rate. It is also not in dispute that the Government had permitted him to deal with that wheat in the manner he wants, and therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the Government took unreasonable stand that because now the Petitioner is permitted to deal with the wheat in the manner he wants, he should pay to the Government the market price of the wheat. Similarly, there is nothing - 4 - wrong in the Government demanding Rs.18 per empty gunny bag. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it was the case of the Petitioner that after having received the wheat he had to preserve it till 2001 and therefore, claiming Rs.173/- per Quintal for the uncrushed wheat was unreasonable. In our opinion, it will depend on the inquiry into the fact as to what is the expenses made by the Petitioner for preserving the wheat. We find that the petition raises the questions which are essentially a question of fact, which cannot be gone into in the writ jurisdiction of this court. In short, we do not find any reason to interfere in favour of the Petitioner. Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M.KANADE, J.)