VISHWANATH BABURAO CHOKOTE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals raise questions with respect to interpretation and application of a State Government Resolution following upon a policy note issued by the Central Government governing the setting up of new sugar co-operatives. The three Appeals, under letters patent, seek to challenge the common judgment and order dated 9th November, 2001 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the three writ petitions filed by the three appellants.

(2.) IT is material to note that the above-referred Akkalkot and South Solapur Talukas are adjacent Talukas and these two Talukas along with one Omerga Taluka (which is a Taluka from the adjoining Osmanabad District) are now well irrigated on account of lift irrigation schemes known as "ujni Lift Irrigation Scheme" and "sina Irrigation Scheme". This has led to a good increase in the production of sugarcane in these areas. All these Sugar Co-operatives and their Promoters intend to set up one more Sugar Co-operative in the same area and their common competitor is the 3rd respondent in all the three appeals, one Shri Anandrao Narayanrao Deokate who is the Chief Promoter of a proposed Sugar Co-operative named as "dakshin Solapur Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana". The State of Maharashtra and the Commissioner of Sugar are the 1st and the 2nd respondents. The other concerned Sugar Co-operatives and/or their Chairmen are joined as the other respondents in these appeals. The grievance in these three appeals and in the writ petitions initially filed by the appellants was with respect to the order passed by the Commissioner of Sugar in favour of respondent No 3. This respondent No. 3 is a Minister in the present Government in the State of Maharashtra. Incidentally, the appellant in L. P. A. No. 280 of 2001 (Chief Promoter of Basweshwar Karkhana) and respondent No. 3 both belong to the same political party viz. Congress (I ). For the sake of convenience, the three appellants in the three appeals are at times referred to as "basweshwar Karkhana", "indira Karkhana" and "shrishail Karkhana" respectively.

(3.) IT so happened that initially the Commissioner of Sugar by his order dated 22-5-2001, gave permission to the 3rd respondent to set up his Sugar Co-operative and to open a Bank Account for that purpose. That permission was challenged by Basweshwar Karkhana by filing Writ Petition No. 2534 2001 and the petition came to be allowed by the order passed by a learned Single Judge on 3rd July, 2001. The order passed by the learned Single Judge set aside the permission given to the 3rd respondent and directed a fresh hearing. The Commissioner of Sugar thereafter heard all the concerned parties once again and passed a speaking order on 21-9-2001 maintaining his earlier decision to grant the permission to respondent No. 3. It is this order dated 21-9-2001 which came to be challenged in the three writ petitions. These three writ petitions were heard by the learned Single Judge together and they came to be dismissed by the impugned order leading to the present three appeals under the Letters Patent. A Division Bench which initially heard these appeals for admission, directed that the appeals be posted for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The Division Bench, however, directed that the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the petition will continue until further orders. That order was modified by the Division Bench by its further order dated 12th December, 2001 and it permitted the 3rd respondent to invest in a Fixed Deposit the amounts already collected and which were credited by the 3rd respondent in the Solapur District Central Co-operative Bank, Kandalgaon Branch, Solapur. The Division Bench, however, specifically permitted day to day expenses including the amounts of salary to the staff and for conducting meetings, if any. A statement of the Counsel for respondent No. 3 was also recorded that thereafter no collection of funds would be made until disposal of the petition.