1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8535 OF 2009 Shivdas s/o Tukaram Zagade, R/o-Jalalpur, Tq-Karjat, Dist-Ahmednagar and others. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through it's Secretary, Co-operation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. S.N. Gaikwad Advocate h/f. Shri. N.V. Gaware Advocate for Petitioners. Shri.V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Shri. A.R. Borulkar Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2010. 2 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Petitioners contend that in the crushing season of the year 2006-2007 they supplied sugar cane to the Respondent No.5 Sugar Factory - Ajinkyatara Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. The Respondent No.5 promised to pay Rs. 1099.50/- per metric tone which is Statutory Minimum Price (S.M.P.), including transportation charges. According to the Petitioners, the Sugar Factory deducted transportation charges and paid only Rs.700/- per metric tone to the Petitioners by excluding transportation charges. The Petitioners filed representation before the Commissioner (Sugar), who called for audit report. However, nothing was done thereafter and therefore the Petition was filed in the year 2009. 3. Reply is filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 Sugar Factory and on behalf of the State. In 3 substance, the contention of the Respondents is that the Petitioners are not members of Respondent No.5 Sugar Factory. In the season of 2006-2007 there was huge crop of sugar cane. The State Government provided financial aid to some sugar factories, under which the transportation charges were reimbursed on certain conditions in respect of the said sugar factories who obtained prior permission of the State Government. 4. In the facts of the case, we find that the Petitioners have raised monetary claim against the Respondent No.5 Sugar Factory. In the light of the affidavit in reply filed, we are not inclined to interfere in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, as the Petitioners have efficacious alternate remedy, for redressal of their grievances. The Writ Petition is rejected. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/JULY10/wp8535.09