1 wp4547.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4547 OF 2010 Senapati Prataprao Gurjar Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. : Petitioner V/s. The Commissioner for Sugar, Government of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents .... Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Senior Advocate, i/b. Mr.P.D.Dalvi for the petitioner. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.1 & 2. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : AUGUST 11, 2010. P.C.: Mentioned. Not on board. Rule, returnable forthwith. The learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader waives service for the respondent nos.1 & 2. Heard the petition finally by consent of parties. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 21.5.2010 issued by the Commissioner for Sugar whereby the petitioner was 2 wp4547.10 informed that since he failed to submit Arial Distance Certificate on or before 20.5.2010, the application submitted by the petitioner seeking permission to establish a new unit came to be rejected. The petitioner was also informed that priority no.22 in the priority list stands cancelled. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the following facts are not in dispute: The respondent no.1 vide letter dated 20.4.2010 directed the petitioner to submit fresh Arial Distance Certificate within a period of one month. The Surveyor of India issued the said certificate on 24.5.2010. The petitioner received the communication dated 20.4.2004 issued by the respondent no.1 on 24.5.2010 and on the same date submitted the Arial Distance Certificate dated 24.5.2010 to the respondent no.1 Commissioner. 4. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that since the said Arial Distance Certificate was not submitted by the petitioner before 20.5.2010, the impugned order came to be passed. It is submitted that the petitioner was expected or required to submit the certificate within one month from the date of receipt of the communication dated 20.4.2010 which was received by the petitioner on 3 wp4547.10 26.4.2010, before that the petitioner has submitted the Arial Distance Certificate dated 24.5.2010 before the respondent no.1 on 24.5.2010. The learned Senior Advocate, therefore, contended that the impugned communication, in these circumstances, may be quashed and set aside and the petition may be allowed in terms of prayer clause (b). 5. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. It is not in dispute that the communication dated 20.4.2010 issued by the respondent no.1 was received by the petitioner on 26.4.2010. If that is so, then it was expected of the petitioner to submit the Arial Distance Certificate within one month from 26.4.2010, since one month’s time is given to the petitioner to submit the said certificate vide communication dated 20.4.2010. It is also not disputed that the petitioner, in fact, submitted the Arial Distance Certificate on 24.5.2010. In the instant case, the respondent no.1 calculated the time of one month from 20.4.2010 instead of 26.4.2010 i.e. the date on which the communication was received by the petitioner. It is, in these circumstances, that we are of the view that the approach of the respondent no.1 is incorrect and, therefore, the impugned decision is unsustainable in law. 6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we quash and set aside the 4 wp4547.10 impugned communication dated 21.5.2010 issued by the respondent no.1 and allow the petition. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b). No order as to costs. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)