1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1341 of 2010 Rajarambapu Patil SSK Ltd. ....Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner of Sugar & ors. ....Respondents Mr. A.A. Kumbhakoni, advocate with Mr. A.M.Kulkarni. Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.S.Gokhale, AGP for respondents 1­4. CORAM:­ A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED:­ March 15, 2010 P.C.: Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 3. Mr. Gokhale waives notice for all the Respondents. 4. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 5. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has assailed the order dated 18th January, 2010 passed by the 2 Respondent No.1 purportedly under clause 3(8) of Sugarcane Control Order, 1966. 6. The factual matrix as well as the legal issues which arises for our consideration is similar to one decided by the Division Bench of our High Court in the case of Mahakali Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. in Writ Petition No. 7400/2009 dated 19th January, 2010. The Learned AGP in all fairness submits that the present Petition should follow the same suit. In the circumstances, the Petition succeeds for the same reasons. Rule made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). No order as to costs. (R.M. SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)