JUDGMENT
V.P. Salve, J.
1. This petition will have to be rejected on the short ground that the Maharashtra Sugar Factories (Reservation of Areas and Regulation of Crushing and Sugarcane Supply) Order 1984, does not bar the Khandsary Sugar Factories from purchasing sugarcane growers. The reservation, as contained in section 3 of the order, is to the following effect-
” 3. Reservation of areas.—
(1) Having regard to the crushing capacity of sugar factories and, the yield of sugarcane in the reserved areas, and the need for production of sugar, the area as specified in each of the schedules is hereby reserved for the factory mentioned in that schedule, with a view to enabling it to purchase the quantity of sugarcane required by it.
(2) Subject to the provisions of Clauses 4 and 5 of this order, no sugar factory shall purchase cane or accept supplies of cane from cane growers except from the area reserved for the factory.”
Apparently, the Khandsary Sugar Factory is not included in this provision. On the other hand, we find that the reservation is in respect of sugar factories alone with the result that any other sugar factory in the area will not be able to take sugar from sugarcane growers in the area reserve for a particular sugar factory.
2. While the dismissing the petition, we must make the following directions:—
i) That the order dated 12-9-1982 must be amended by the concerned authorities as per judgment in Writ Petition No 4897 of 1986 “Rahuri Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Shivajinagar v. The State of Maharashtra, delivered on 14th August, 1986 (by Dharamadhikari & Sugla, JJ.) unless the amendment are carried out as judgment the entire order will have to be held in abeyance.
ii) That, in case the respondents No. 1 applies for renewal of their licence, the petitioner shall be given notice of hearing of the same before licence is granted to them. This would be in conformity with the provisions of the Maharashtra Khandsary Manufactures Licencing Order, 1979, especially sub-clause (c) of Clause (4) of section 3 whereby adequate supplies of sugarcane to a sugar factory has to be ensured.
iii) However, while considering the renewal of the licence of the respondents No. 1 , effect will also be given to our judgment delivered on 30-1-1987 in Writ Petition No. 1344 of 1986. A copy of which may be sent to the respondent No. 2.
With these directions, the petition is dismissed. However, there will not be any order as to costs. In view of the fact that we have dismissed the petition, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- which was ordered by us to be deposited by respondent No. 1 on 23-1-1987 and which was deposited on 27-1-1987 by on 27-1-1987 by the respondent No. 1 is ordered No. 1 is refunded to respondent No. 1.