IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) SATURDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 8673 of 2008 Between: N.C.S. Sugars Limited, rep by its Manager- Commercial, R.d. Prasad Reddy S/o Late R. Konda Reddy 405 & 406 Minar Apartments, Deccan Towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State of andhra Pradesh, rep by Chief Principal Secretary (Revenue Department) Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The Sugarcane Commissioner, Governmentof Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Commissioner of Prohibition & Excise, Governmentof andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 4 Ganapati Sugar Industries ltd., rep by its managing Director, Fasalavadi, Sanga reddy medak district. 5 Madhucon Sugar and power Industries Ltd, rep by its managing Director, Rajeswarapuram, Khammam District. 6 Prudential sugar Coropration Limited, rep by managing Director, Nindra Mandal, Chittoor District. 7 Etikoppaka Co-operative sugar Limited, rep by its managing Director, Etikoppaka, visakhapatnam District. 8 Thandava Cooperative Sugar Limited, rep by its managing Director, Payakaraopeta, Visakhapatnam District. 9 the NVR & ADR cooperative Sugar Limited, rep byits Managing Director, Jampani, Guntur district. 10 Kakatiya Cements Sugar & Industries Limited, rep by its Managing Director, peruvancha Villge, kalluru Mandal, Khammam District. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.VENKATARAMANA Counsel for Respondent No.3: GP FOR PROHIBITION & EXCISE The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to direct respondent No.3 (wrongly typed as first respondent) to act in accordance with law and forbear from interfering with the sale/transport/movement of molasses by respondent Nos.4 to 10 to the petitioner to enable it to export the same to foreign buyers. Heard Sri V.Venkata Ramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise and perused the record. The petitioner earlier filed W.P.No.6392 of 2008 on the plea that it entered into a contract of sale with respondent Nos.4 to 9 and respondent No.3 had been obstructing export of molasses purchased by the petitioner from respondent Nos.4 to 9. This Court while admitting the said writ petition, granted interim direction on 31.03.2008 in WPMP.No.8349 of 2008 as under: “This is an application to direct the respondents not to interfere with the export of molasses by the petitioner by way of shipment at Kakinada pursuant to his representation dated 05- 03-2008, pending the writ petition. No counter-affidavit is filed. Heard Sri V. Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Prohibition and Excise. The petitioner made representation dated 5-03-2008 to respondent No.3, wherein it requested extension of the No Objection Certificates (NOC’s) given by respondent No.3 in respect of 9488.075 metric tons of molasses and pass orders on the applications for granting NOC’s in respect of 10500 metric tons. The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent No.3 has not passed any order so far and that unless the stock is loaded into the ship, which according to the learned counsel had already arrived, he will suffer huge financial losses. Sri Venkataramana, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.2209 of 1998 and batch dated 8-05-2001, wherein it was inter alia held that after rescinding of the Molasses Control Order, 1961 by the Government of India, there are no restrictions on the movement of molasses and that the only option for the State Government is to pass appropriate Legislation on the molasses under the provisions of the A.P.Excise Act, 1968. On this premises, the Division Bench held that levy of administration charges on molasses export from out of the State of A.P. and outside the country was illegal. The learned Government Pleader candidly admitted that so far there is no law in place whereby the movement of molasses can either be stopped/restricted/controlled. He, however, submitted that the State Legislature is contemplating to bring in a Legislation in this regard. I am of the prima facie view that so long as there is no law controlling the movement of molasses, the respondents cannot prevent the petitioner from exporting the same through shipment. Therefore, the respondents are directed not to interfere with the export of molasses shown in the petitioner’s representation dated 05-03-2008, pending further orders.” The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of the said direction, respondent Nos.4 to 10 have not been transporting the molasses sold by them to the petitioner on the fear that respondent No.3 may take action against them. The petitioner has not filed any material in support of this averment nor respondents 4 to 10 joined the petitioner in claiming relief against respondents 1 to 3. The purport of the order passed by this Court comprehends the movement of molasses and its export by the petitioner and there is no basis for the petitioner’s plea that respondent No.3 may take action against respondent Nos.4 to 10, if they transport molasses to the petitioner. If respondents 4 to 10 refuse to transport molasses without justification, the same falls in the realm of a private dispute arising under a contract for which the petitioner’s remedies lie elsewhere. Subject to the above observations, the writ petition is dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.11490 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 19th APRIL, 2008 kvni