Ast 1 wp4046.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4046 OF 2010 Tasgaonkar Sugar Mill Ltd. & Anr. ....Petitioners Vs. The Commissioner of Sugar & Ors. ....Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4048 OF 2010 Shivratna Udyog Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. ....Petitioners Vs. The Commissioner of Sugar & Ors. ....Respondents Smt. Ashvini A. Takalkar, advocate for the petitioners in both the petitions. Mr.V.S.GOkhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ DATED:- MAY 6, 2010 P.C. 1. Not on board. Upon production taken on board. 2. The Petitioners through Counsel submits that the Petitioners would be content if the Court were to grant relief in terms of prayer clause (a). That relief reads thus: Ast 2 wp4046.10.sxw “(a) This Hon’ble Court may, by way of appropriate writ order or direct/permit the Respondent No.1 to hear and finally dispose off the petitioners application for minimum aerial distance certificate as contemplated in Rule 6B of the Sugar Cane (Control) (Amendment) Order, 2006.” 3. In our opinion, the direction sought by the Petitioner is a benign relief which the Authority is obliged to observe while deciding the concerned Application for Aerial Distance Certificate in exercise of its statutory power under Sugarcane (Control) Order. 4. Notably, learned A.G.P. on behalf of the Respondents, in all fairness, submits that the Authorities are bound to follow the regime specified in Sugarcane (Control) Order and cannot give preference to some other Applicant not in order of chronology. In the circumstances, Petitions are made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 5. Petitions disposed of on the above terms. (R.M. SAVANT, J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)