6.wp.1392-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.1392 OF 2010 Shri. Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Someshwarnagar, District - Pune. ..Petitioner. Versus Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra State, Pune and another. ..Respondents. .... Mr.A.V. Anturkar, Advocate i/b. Sugandh B. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1 & 2 - State. .... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 25, 2010. P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. The petitioner is a co-operative society running a sugar factory. It is a existing sugar factory. The Commissioner of Sugar has granted no objection to the petitioner to approach the named agency for getting a detailed project report for setting up a power co-generation project. Now to proceed in that direction, the petitioner applied to the Commissioner of Sugar for 6.wp.1392-10 2 permission to increase its sugarcane crushing capacity. That application for permission to increase has virtually been rejected by communication dated 8th September, 2009 and therefore the petitioner is before this Court challenging the communication dated 8th September, 2009. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the only reason given in the communication dated 8th September, 2009 is the orders passed by this Court in PIL No. 20 of 2006 and the opinion of the Law and Judiciary Department. Therefore, the petitioner applied under Right to Information Act for getting copy of the opinion that was given by the Law and Judiciary Department in relation to the petitioner’s proposal. The petitioner has received the copy of that opinion. In that opinion, the Law and Judiciary Department has referred to three orders passed in PIL No.20 of 2006 by this Court i.e. orders dated 12.7.2006, 26.7.2006 and 10.8.2006. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that perusal of all these three orders show that none of these order relates to existing sugar factory and they are in relation to setting up of a new sugar factory. The learned Counsel therefore submits that 6.wp.1392-10 3 the communication dated 8th September, 2009 is based on a totally incorrect view of the orders passed by this Court and, therefore, it is liable to be set aside. 5. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. We have also perused the record. Perusal of the orders passed in PIL No.20 of 2006 by this Court dated 12.7.2006, 26.7.2006 and 10.8.2006 show that the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is right and that those orders do not relate to the existing sugar factory. The learned AGP also could not show that any of those orders relate to the existing sugar factory. He submitted that an application was made before a Division Bench of this Court in PIL No.20 of 2006 to get clarification from the Division Bench. However, the Division Bench has not made any order which will connect the orders, referred to above, to the existing sugar factory. 6. It is thus clear that the opinion of the Law and Judiciary Department that in view of the orders mentioned in that opinion passed by this Court in PIL No.20 of 2006 existing sugar factory cannot increase the production capacity, is absolutely wrong and that also renders the order of the 6.wp.1392-10 4 Commissioner of Sugar dated 8th September, 2009 erroneous and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. The order is accordingly set aside. The Commissioner of Sugar is directed to reconsider the issue and take a fresh decision in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of four weeks from today. 7. Rule made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. Petition is disposed of accordingly. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)