BAPPASAHEB BHANUDASRAO JADHAV Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are agriculturists who cultivate sugarcane crops on their land situated at Navgaon Tq. Paithan Dist. Aurangabad. They are the sugarcane grower members of the respondent No. 4 - Co-operative Sugar Factory and they are known as "a" - class members of the said Society. The petitioners have contended that they are supplying sugarcane to the said sugar factory since 1981-82. However, the respondent No. 4 - Sugar factory failed to pay the price of sugarcane sold by them, within stipulated period of fourteen days after the supply of sugarcane. A statement is annexed with this petition indicating as to when the sugarcane was supplied by the petitioners to the respondent No. 4 factory: when the payment was made for the said sugarcane supplied by the petitioners. It is the contention of the petitioners that on certain occasions there was late payment.

(2.) THE petitioners have contended that the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 which is notified as per the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 makes a provision under clause 3-A that the price of the sugarcane purchased by the purchaser of sugar must be paid within fourteen days from the date of supply of sugarcane and, if there is any failure to make such a payment, then the purchaser of sugar to pay interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum for the period of delay caused in making the payment. The respondent No. 4 - Sugar factory, in spite of this specific provision and the order issued under the Act, has failed to carry out its legal obligation of paying the price of sugarcane within fourteen days from the date of supply of sugarcane or the interest on the delayed payment.

(3.) IT is also the contention of the petitioners that the respondent No. 2 - Director of Sugar, and the respondent No. 3 - Regional Deputy Director (Sugar) are the Officers appointed by the State of Maharashtra (respondent No. 1), for supervising the work of sugar factories with respect to supply of sugarcane and sale of sugar and other connected matters. The petitioners had moved the respondents 2 and 3 in respect of non-payment of interest on late payment of price of the sugarcane. However, the respondents 2 and 3 failed to take any action against the respondent No. 4 - Sugar factory. In fact, the respondent No. 4 - Sugar factory ought to have been prosecuted as per the provisions of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.