(1) WP 2009.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2009 OF 2010 Gangamai Industries & Constructions Ltd., Aurangabad through its Vice President PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and ors. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. P.R. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mrs. V.A. Shinde, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. ..... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 10TH MARCH, 2011 ORAL ORDER:- 1. Heard Advocate Patil for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for the respondents. 2. By placing reliance upon the show-cause notice dated 16.7.2008 served upon petitioner as per Section 3 of the Sugarcane (Regulation) Order, 1966, Shri Patil points out that even bare perusal thereof is sufficient to prove that petitioner had paid amount of Rs.85,56,450/- to the sugarcane cultivators. He therefore challenges the impugned communication dated 30.11.2009 holding that sugarcane (2) WP 2009.2010 cultivators are entitled to amount of Rs.560/- per Metric Ton more and, therefore, directed recovery of amount of Rs.1,43,14,000/- from petitioner-sugar factory as arrears of land revenue under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. He states that order is not only without jurisdiction but also perverse inasmuch as because payment made has not been looked into and the basis for arriving at the figure of Rs. 560/- per Metric Ton is not apparent in the order. He has urged that the Commissioner for Sugar and Additional Registrar, Co-operative Societies are not authorised to pass this order. 3. Learned A.G.P. points out that orders have been passed after extending opportunity of hearing and and at that time no objection was raised as regards jurisdiction. Reliance is being placed on the facts disclosed in paragraph 5 and 6 of the reply affidavit sworn by Regional Joint Director of Aurangabad Region, Aurangabad. Learned A.G.P. states that the petitioner has not paid proper price to the sugarcane growers and hence the amount has been correctly worked out. (3) WP 2009.2010 4. Perusal of affidavit as filed reveals that after considering the declared statutory miminum price of Rs.910.80 per Metric Ton and after deducting amount of Rs.439.75 per Metric Ton as expenditure for harvesting and transportation, net payable price per Metric Ton worked out is Rs.472.05. However, how this has been increased to Rs.560/- per M.T. is not clear. Similarly, when show cause notice itself recorded more payment, why the factory is found to have effected such less payment to sugarcane growers is also nowhere apparent. In other words, the impugned order does not contain necessary reasons to show application of mind and to enable this Court to understand how entitlement of each sugarcane grower has been worked out. The order therefore cannot be said to be a reasoned order. 5. The learned A.G.P. has requested for grant of adjournment to enable her to find out how the figure of Rs.560/- per Metric Ton has been arrived at in impugned notice. However, the disclosure of said facts to this Court will not be sufficient as the impugned order itself has to demonstrate application (4) WP 2009.2010 of mind to relevant facts in that respect and then to support said figure in the course of reasoning. As that thought process is not available on record, grant of time to learned A.G.P. will not be helpful, hence that request has been rejected. Impugned order dated 30.11.2009 is therefore quashed and set aside. Petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent no.2 on 5.4.2011 and the said respondent shall then proceed to hear the petitioner in the matter afresh in the light of observations made by this Court. Objection of petitioner to the competency of respondent no.2 to take cognizance of such dispute is kept open and petitioner can point out absence of jurisdiction/delegation to that authority. 6. After hearing petitioner, respondent no.2 shall pass a reasoned and self-sustaining order as early as possible and in any case by 31st May, 2011. Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. No costs. Sd/- [B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.] arp