JUDGMENT
C.K. Thakker, C.J.
1. Rule. Mr. R.D. Rane, Additional Government Pleader, appears and waives service of rule on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 2A. In the facts and circumstances, the matters have been taken up for final hearing.
2. Writ Petition No. 7391 of 2002 is instituted by the petitioner against the respondents for an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the State of Maharashtra and Commissioner of Sugar, Pune, respondent No.1, to implement Zonal Order, 1984 issued under the provisions of Mahrashtra Sugar Factories (Reservation of Areas and Regulation of Crushing and Sugar-cane supply) Order hereinafter referred to as “the Order”), as amended from time to time and to ensure that petitioner-karkhana gets sugar-cane necessary for its existence as per crushing licence issued by the Joint Director of Sugar (Development) and Licensing Authority, Pune, respondent No. 2A. A prayer is also made directing the State Government to revise Zonal Order 1984 as per the decision of this Court in Satra Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., 1988 MhLJ 1048 (FB), partly confirmed by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Rajya Sakhar Sahakari Karkhana Singh Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1995) 2 Scale 163.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Full Bench of this Court in Satra Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. issued certain directions to the respondents. Those directions are found in paragraphs 25 and 31 of the reported decision. Against the said judgement, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court disposed of the appeal by issuing certain directions.
4. It is submitted that the directions issued by this Court in paragraph 25 of the decision were set aside by the Supreme Court but the directions issued by this Court in paragraph 31 of the decision were not disturbed. It is, therefore, submitted that the State government is bound to comply with the directions issued by the Full Bench of this court. The Counsel also submitted that after the decision of this court and the Supreme Court, Zonal Order of 1984 had been amende din 1997. By the amended order, non-members were completely and members were partially permitted to supply sugar-cane to any factory of their choice.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents were obliged to comply with the directions issued by the Full Bench of this court in paragraph 31 of the decision which were binding and they had to be followed scrupulously. Those directions have not been complied with which has resulted in non-supply of sugar-cane to the petitioner and other similarly situated karkhanas. It is, therefore, prayed that respondent No.1 be directed to revise forthwith zones created under the Zonal Orders, taking into account relevant factors affecting supply of sugar-cane to the factories and to ensure supply of sugar-cane to Karkhanas so as to enable them to survive and to work to their full capacity, at least for 160 days for each season. It is also urged that after the validity of 1997 Order was upheld by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court, a Committee was appointed, i.e. Mahajan Committee, to look into the matter and till the report of Mahajan Committee is considered and implemented, it is the duty of the respondents to ensure supply of sufficient sugar- cane to the petitioner and other karkhanas. Since no action is taken by the respondents, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court.
6. In the second petition (Writ Petition No. 7055 of 2002), legality and validity of the order dated 21st June, 2002 passed by Commissioner of Sugar, Pune, respondent No.2, preventing the petitioner from accepting the sugar-cane without the same being included in the allotment order has been challenged. Validity of condition No. 8 of the crushing licence for the year 2002-03 is also questioned. It is prayed that the petitioner be permitted to purchase sugar-cane from agriculturists who intend to supply their sugar- cane to the petitioner who might have cultivated the sugar-cane outside zonal limits of the petitioner’s factory, irrespective of whether such sugar-cane is not included in the allotment order.
7. An affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of respondent-authorities by the Assistant Director (Development) stating therein that while dealing with the Sugar Order, 1984, the Supreme Court issued certain directions.
8. It was then stated;
“The State Government may take appropriate steps to amend Clause (5) of the Zonal Order so as to protect the cane growers”.
Accordingly, the State Government issued Amending Order in 1997 on April 30, 1997. Under the said amendment, the non-member cane growers for their cultivation are free to supply sugar-cane to sugar factory of their choice by entering into an agreement. The validity of the amendment was challenged in Writ Petition No. 3390 of 1997 but it was upheld. The Supreme Court also did not interfere with the order passed by this Court. It is also stated that certain writ petitions were filed being Writ Petition Nos. 4755, 4778, 5004 and 5024 of 2001. It was observed by this Court that export permit has become a formality. Neither the sugar factory (from whose area the cane is being exported) nor the Government machinery including police of officers can stop harvesting or transporting sugar-cane. It was further observed by this Court that if sugar-cane growers after entering into agreement with sugar factories do not supply sugar-cane to such factories, the factories can take appropriate action against the members in accordance with Section 79B of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and by claiming damages in an appropriate forum. They may also take appropriate criminal action. It was, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.
9. Even in the licence issued in favour of the petitioner, it is specifically mentioned that it is the responsibility of the petitioner to draw sugar- cane and if the cane growers decides to send his product to the factory of his choice, the authorities cannot stop selling sugar-cane in the light of the amended Zoning Order.
10. An additional affidavit is also filed by the Assistant Director wherein it was stated that in continuation to further progress of revision work of Zonal Order, 1984, as amended in 1997, the State Government had constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of Commissioner of Sugar to suggest revision in the Zoing Order, 1997. The Committee had submitted its report to the State Government in July, 1998. The State Government had appointed a Committee on February 4, 2000, under the Chairmanship of Finance Minister to consider change suggested by the Committee of Commissioner of Sugar. The Committee had submitted its report to the State Government in Angst, 2001 which is under consideration of the State Government. It is, therefore, stated that steps have been taken to revise Zonal Orders periodically. There is no deliberate inaction on the part of the State Government.
11. A similar affidavit is filed in the other petition also. Regarding validity of order dated 21st June, 2002, it was stated that the conditions imposed are useful to the sugar-cane growers, sugar factories as well as the Government. The restrictions have been put so as to safeguard and protect the interests of the sugar-cane growers.
12. In the light of the counter-affidavits and steps taken by the State authorities, it cannot be said that there is illegality on the part of the respondent-authorities. In accordance with the decision rendered by this Court as well as by the Supreme Court, steps have been taken by the respondents. Zonal Order, 1984, was amended in 1997. The validity thereof has been upheld even by the Apex Court. As per the statement made on behalf of the authorities and the direction issued by the Court, steps have been taken by them. For further amendments, a Committee was appointed which has submitted its report and for consideration of the recommendations and implementation thereof, the matter is pending before the Government. Actions have also been taken by the authorities to protect and safeguard interest of sugar-cane growers by granting liberty to them to sell sugar-cane, subject to certain terms and conditions. Such and action cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable or without authority of law. In case of non-compliance with the agreements individually entered into between the Karkhanas and sugar-cane growers, as observed by a Division Bench decision of this Court. (Augrangabad Bench) in Writ petition No. 4755 of 2001 and companion matters, decided on 10th December, 2001, it is open tot the karkahanas to take appropriate civil and/or criminal proceedings in accordance with law. In our opinion, in the light of the above observations and directions, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
13. It may be true that in view of the Zonal Order, 1997 and liberty granted to sugar-cane growers to sell sugar-cane in open market, the petitioners and other karkahans may have difficulties in getting sufficient stock of sugar- cane which may adversely affect their business. But once we hold that the action taken by the respondent-authorities cannot be termed illegal or unlawful and the underlying object of issuing such directions and giving liberty to the sugar-cane growers is to protect their interests is proper and valid, in our opinion, they do not deserve interference by this Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
14. For the reasons aforesaid, we see no substance in any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Both the petitions deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged in each petition. In the facts and circumstances, however, there shall be no order as to costs.
Certified copy expedited.