1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4162 OF 1998. 1. Shrinath Maruti Reddy, Age major, Occ.Agri., R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. 2. Pawan Sambhaji Isthalkar, Age major, Occ.Agri., R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 3. Shrinivas Maruti Reddy, Age major, Occ.Agri., R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 4. Maruti Goroba Reddy, Age major, Occ.Agri., R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. ` ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Jai Javan Jai Kisan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Ltd., Chakur, Tq.Chakur, Dist. Latur. through it's Managing Director. 3. The Joint Director of Sugar, Nanded, Dist.Nanded. 4. The Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra Pune, New P.M.T.Building, 2 Sar Gate, Pune. 5. Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Sangh Ltd., 'Sakhar Bhavan', Nariman Point, Mumbai, through its Managing Director. ... Respondents. ... Mr.Ghute Patil, advocate holding for Mr.B.S.Ghutte, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, advocate for the Respondent NO. 2. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3578 OF 1998. 1. Nanasaheb S/o Dyandeo Pawar, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 2. Sow. Chandrakala W/o Nanasaheb Pawar, Age major, Occ.Household & Agri., R/o as above. 3. Govind S/o Nanasaheb Pawar, Age major, under Guardianship of Mother Sau. Chandrakala W/o Nanasaheb Pawar, Occ.Student, R/o as above. 4. Satish S/o Dadasaheb Pawar, Age major, Occ.Service & Agri., R/o as above. 5. Damodhar S/o Baburao Pawar, Age major, Occ.Agril. R/o as above. 3 6. Sau. Meenabai W/o Satishrao Pawar, Age major, Occ.Household & Agri., R/o as above. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Jaijavan Jaikisan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Chakur, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur. 3. The Joint Director of Sugar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. 4. The Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra Pune, New P.M.T.Building, Sar gate, Pune. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.B.Ghute, advocate holding for Mr.B.S.Ghute, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.V.D.Rakha, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, advocate for the Respondent No. 2. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4163 OF 1998. 1. Rajabhau S/o Namdeo Farkande, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 2. Ramesh S/o Dasharath Pawar, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 3. Shivaji S/o Vishwanath Yaswhwant, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 4 4. Nanasaheb S/o Ganpati Saste, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, R/o Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 5. Anil S/o Vitthalrao Pawar, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 6. Sau. Shilabai W/o Anil Pawar, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 7. Ashabai W/o Abasaheb Pawar, Age major, Occ.Household & Agril.,R/o Deola, Tq.Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 8. Balasaheb S/o Sudhakar Pawar, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. 9. Sudhakar S/o Namdeo Pawar, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Jai Javan Jai Kisan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,Chakur, Tq.Chakur, Dist. Latur, through it's Managing Director. 3. The Joint Director of Sugar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. 4. The Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra Pune, New P.M.T. Building, Sar Gate Pune. 5 5. Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Sangh Ltd., "Sakhar Bhavan", Nariman Point, Mumbai, through its Managing Director. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.B.Ghute, advocate holding for Mr.B.S.Ghute, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.N.B.Patil, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, advocate for the Respondent NO. 2. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4164 OF 1998. 1. Premkala Tulsiram Isthalkar, Age major, Occ.Agril & Household, R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 2. Vachalabai Tukaram Isthalkar, Age major, Occ.Agril. & Household, R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. 3. Balasaheb Manchakrao Deshmuk, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Anjanpur, Tq.Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. 4. Shahuraj Manchakrao Deshmukh, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Anjanpur, Tq.Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. 5. Sow. Damyanti Praladrao Reddy, Age major, Occ.Agril & Household, R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 6 6.Namdev Praladrao Reddy, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 7. Sow. Balikbai Dnyanoba Deshmukh, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Anjanpur, Tq.Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Managing Director, Jai Javan Jai Kisan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Nalegaon, Tq.Chakur, Dist.Beed. 3. The Joint Director of Sugar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. 4. The Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra Pune, New P.M.T. Building, Sar gate, Pune. 5. Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Sangh,Ltd., "Sakhar Bhavan", Nariman Point, Mumbai, through its Managing Director. ...Respondents. ... Mr.S.B.Ghute, advocate holding for Mr.B.S.Ghute, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.N.B.Patil, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, advocate for the Respondent No. 2. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4165 OF 1998. 1. Sambhaji Goroba Reddy, Age major, Occ.Agril., 7 R/o Anjanpur, Tq.Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. Tuljabhavani Setkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Naldurg, Tq. Tuljapur,Dist. Osmanabad. 3. The Joint Director of Sugar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. 4. The Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra Pune, New P.M.T. Building, Sar gate, Pune. 5. Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Sangh,Ltd., "Sakhar Bhavan", Nariman Point, Mumbai, through its Managing Director. ...Respondents. ... Mr.S.B.Ghute, advocate holding for Mr.B.S.Ghute, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.D.Rakh, advocate for the State. Mr.S.B.Wakure, advocate for Respondent No.2 absent. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4166 of 1998. 1. Ramdas Sahebrao Deshmukh, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 2. Sow.Laxmibai Sahebrao Deshmukh, Age major, Occ.Agril. & Household, R/o Anjanpur, Tq.Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 8 3. Rahul Arvind Isthalkar, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. 4. Sayam Praladhrao Panale, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Managing Director, Jai Javan Jai Kisan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Nalegaon, Tq.Chakur, Dist.Beed. 3. The Joint Director of Sugar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. 4. The Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra Pune, New P.M.T. Building, Sar gate, Pune. 5. Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Sangh,Ltd., "Sakhar Bhavan", Nariman Point, Mumbai, through its Managing Director. ...Respondents. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4176 of 1998. 1. Raghunath S/o Pralhadrao Pawar, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 2. Hanumant S/o Pralhadrao Pawar, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. 9 3. Annasaheb S/o Panditrao Pawar, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 4. Dattoba S/o Sukhdeo Pawar, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 5. Kalyan S/o Uttamrao Pawar, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 6. Vijaykumar Pawar, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Deola, Tq.Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. 7. Bhausaheb S/o Dattoba Pawar, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 8. Sukhadeo S/o Shankar Mange, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Deola, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 9. Sau. Prabhavati W/o Vilasrao Mange, Age major, Occ.Household and Agril.,R/o Deola, Tq.Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Managing Director, Jai Javan Jai Kisan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Nalegaon, Tq.Chakur, Dist.Beed. 3. The Joint Director of Sugar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. 4. The Commissioner of Sugar, 10 Maharashtra Pune, New P.M.T. Building, Sar gate, Pune. 5. Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Sangh,Ltd., "Sakhar Bhavan", Nariman Point, Mumbai, through its Managing Director. ...Respondents. ... Mr.S.B.Ghute, advocate holding for Mr.B.S.Ghute, advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, advocate for the Respondent No. 2. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4167 OF 1998 1. Shrikant Dhondiram Isthalkar, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. 2. Prabhakar Kisanrao Reddy, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 3. Sanjay Irrappa Reddy, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 4. Balaji Ankush Reddy, Age major, Occ.Agri., R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed., 5. Sow. Shobha Balaji Reddy, Age major, Occ.Agri & Household, R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 11 6. Sow.Kantabai Bharat Reddy, Age major, Occ.Agri & Household, R/o Anjanpur, Tq.Ambajogai, Dist.Beed. 7. Desai Vitthalrao Deshmukh, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 8. Ashok Bharat Reddy, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Anjanpur, Tq.Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. 9. Sow. Padminbai Venkatrao Sude, Age major, Occ.Agril., R/o Anjanpur, Tq. Ambajogai, Dist. Beed. ... Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Managing Director, Jai Javan Jai Kisan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Nalegaon, Tq.Chakur, Dist.Beed. 3. The Joint Director of Sugar, Nanded, Dist. Nanded. 4. The Commissioner of Sugar, Maharashtra Pune, New P.M.T. Building, Sar gate, Pune. 5. Maharashtra Rajya Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Sangh,Ltd., "Sakhar Bhavan", Nariman Point, Mumbai, through its Managing Director. ...Respondents. ... Mr.S.B.Ghute, advocate holding for Mr.B.S.Ghute, advocate for the petitioners. 12 Mrs.R.K.Ladda, Asstt.Govt. Pleader for the State. Mr.V.G.Sakolkar, advocate for the Respondent No.2 ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 02.08.2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R.Gavai,J.) 1. By the present petitions, the petitioners are contending that the petitioners should be paid the third instalment of the sugarcane crushed by the Respondent No.2 factory. 2. According to the petitioners, the petitioners had taken a crop of sugarcane in the agricultural year 1994-95 and the same was supplied to the Respondent No.2. The petitioners contend that they obtained first instalment of Rs.460/- per M.T. on 29.7.1995. An amount of Rs. 10/- under the head of non-refundable amount was deducted out of the first instalment. 3. According to the petitioners they received the second instalment of Rs.150/- per 13 M.T. also. It is the case of the petitioners that though the third instalment of Rs.55/- per M.T. was paid to some shareholders, same was denied to them. 4. Mr.Ghute, learned counsel submits that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.294/1996, with companion matters dated 26.3.2004, a discrimination between the members and non-members in the matter of payment of price is not tenable. He, therefore, submits that the Respondents be directed to pay the third instalment. 5. Mr.Sakolkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent NO.2, on the contrary submits that the petitioners are not residing within the area of operation of Karkhana and as such they are not entitled for the third instalment. He submits that third instalment is being paid only to the members of the Karkhana. He relies on the communication dated 5.6.1996 issued by the Director of Sugarcane, Maharashtra State, wherein, the price of the sugarcane for 14 the year 1994-95 has been fixed Rs.676/- for the members per M.T. and Rs.600/- for non-members. He submits that amount has already been paid. As such no interference is warranted. 6. The issue is no more res-integra in view of the judgment of the Division Bench cited supra. The Division Bench has observed thus : "The inference in that regard is apparently sought to be drawn by the respondent factory for its own benefit and to deny the benefit in that regard to the petitioners, in contravention of its obligation to pay the said amount to the petitioners in terms of the clause (xvii) of the licence, issued for the crushing of the sugarcane, under Clause 4 (5) of the said Order 1984. Indeed, the Clause (xvii) thereof clearly states that : "It will be binding upon the factory to make payment of cane price to the members 15 and non-members at the same rate". Apart from the said clause, there is no other clause in the licence, under which the factory is empowered to discriminate between the cane growers, whose cane is crushed either with reference to any particular period or on any other ground whatsoever. In other words, it is obligatory for the factory to pay the same price to each and every cane growers, whose cane is crushed in the factory." It can thus clearly be seen that Division Bench in unequivocal terms held that the distinction between members and non-members in the matter of price is not permissible. The Division Bench has held that it is obligatory for the factory to pay the same price to each and every cane growers whose cane is crushed in the factory (underline emphasis supplied). In view of this clear pronouncement, the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that since the 16 petitioners are not from the area of operating of the Karkhana, they are not entitled to third instalment is without any substance. We find that in that view of the matter, the communication dated 5.6.1996 is not sustainable in law. 6. The petitions are therefore, allowed by directing the Respondent NO.2 to pay the third instalment of Rs.55/- per M.T. to the petitioners if not paid within a period of six (6) months from today. It is further made clear that the petitioners will be entitled to interest at the rate of Rs.8/- (Rupees eight) % p.a. from the date of filing of the petitions till payment. Rule made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp416298 17