THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition Nos.27324 & 26858 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: The petitioners are growers of Tobacco from West Godavari District. The cultivation of tobacco is controlled and regulated by the Tobacco Board (for short ‘the Board’), Guntur. Bhadrachalam area is also under cultivation of tobacco. However, from the year 2007-08 onwards, the cultivation was stopped. The structure – barn is essential for growers of tobacco. As a matter of fact, the possession of a barn, by a grower; is insisted, as a condition precedent for his registration with the Board. Due to stoppage of cultivation in Bhadrachalam region, the farmers, who constructed barns in that area, were facing hardship. To enable them to wriggle out of that situation, the Board evolved a scheme, whereunder tobacco growers from other regions shall be entitled to purchase the godowns in the Bhadrachalam region, and for every two barns so purchased, they shall be entitled to erect one barn in the other area. The petitioners, in the two Writ Petitions, are from Koyyalagudem Mandal of West Godavari District. They purchased two barns, each, from the dealers in the Bhadrachalam region, and claimed to have erected one barn, each, in their native areas, and submitted applications to the 2nd respondent for barn licence. Through separate proceedings, dated 17.09.2009, the 2nd respondent rejected the applications. Appeals, preferred by the petitioners, to the 1st respondent, were rejected, on 26.10.2009. Hence, these two Writ Petitions. The petitioners contend that the purchase of barns from the growers at Bhadrachalam and construction of barns in their native areas is strictly in accordance with the policy declared by the respondents, and still, the licences were rejected on untenable grounds. They also state that, one of the grounds mentioned by the 2nd respondent, viz., the construction of barn without permission, is untenable, and in many cases, the respondents have granted licences for the barns, constructed without permission. The respondents filed separate counter-affidavits, opposing the writ petitions. It is stated that the benefit of construction of a barn at other places is available, only where the growers in the Bhadrachalam area, from whom the barns were purchased, were registered at least for one crop-year in a period of three years, preceding 2007. It is stated that the growers from whom the petitioners purchased the barns, were not registered, even for one year, in the span of three years, before 2007. Other reasons are also mentioned. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The possession of a barn, either as owner, or as lessee, is a condition precedent for grant of licence to an individual, to grow tobacco. The barns, in turn, must be licensed. In the absence of a licence, it would not be recognized. The respondents have identified certain areas in the State for cultivation of tobacco. Till recently, Bhadrachalam was one of the identified areas. For variety of reasons, the area was deleted. Quite large number of barns were constructed, when the permissions were being granted. Once the respondents excluded that area, necessity has arisen to compensate the owners of the barns. One such incentive provided for by the respondents was that, if any one purchased two different godowns from Bhadrachalam area, he would be entitled to construct one in the other areas. The petitioners wanted to avail this facility, and accordingly, purchased barns, from different individuals. After such purchase, they proceeded to construct their own godowns. The respondents specifically pleaded that the facility, referred to above, would be available, if only the owners of the barns in Bhadrachalam area, who are registered as growers, at least, in one year, in the span of three years, before 2007. It is categorically stated that the persons from whom the petitioners purchased barns were not registered as growers within that period. The petitioners are not able to place any material to the contract. One of the contentions advanced by the petitioners is that the respondents granted licence for a godown, which was constructed after two barns, constructed in the other areas, by purchasing barns from Bhadrachalam area from the growers, who were not registered within the stipulated span of time. Additional counter-affidavits are filed dealing with the individual cases. The names of the growers from whom the barns were purchased, are mentioned, and it is clearly stated that all of them were registered as growers, at one point of time, or the other, between the years 2003 and 2007. Therefore, even this ground is not available to the petitioners. The effort of the petitioners is, to secure permission, enabling them to sell the tobacco, grown by them. Apart from the specific facility created by the respondents, the Government also issues policies and guidelines from time to time, particularly to rescue the unauthorized growers of tobacco. The petitioner can certainly avail such benefit, if any. Hence, the Writ Petitions are disposed of, directing that the respondents shall consider the feasibility of permitting the petitioners to sell the tobacco, grown by them, in accordance with the directions, that may be given by the Central Government, for the present crop year. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.21-12-2009. GJ