MOHANRAO VITHALRAO GAOKWAD Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the Petitioners are restricting their claim to the sugarcane grown by Petitioners Nos. 2 to 12. The only prayer that is made is that Petitioners Nos. 2 to 12 should be allowed to give the sugarcane grown by them to deleted Respondent No. 3 - Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Ltd., Sonai, Tq. Newase, District Ahmednagar, with whom they have made agreements.

(2.) Mr. Anil Kasliwal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, has relied upon a decision of this Court dated 14th August 1986 in Writ Petition No. 4897 of 1984 and others. (The Rahuri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Shivaji Nagar, Tal. Rahuri, District Ahmednagar, etc., etc. v The State of Maharashtra, etc., etc}. The said judgment is annexed as Exhibit 'E' to this petition (pp. 44 to 88 of the Paper Book). At page 65 of the Papar Book, the said Judgment, after deducing the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in M /s. Laxmi Khandsan v. Scale of U. P., AIR 1981 SC 873, states : -

(3.) The very fact that the common good of producer is placed as No. 1, it is to be treated on priority in comparison with the common good of the manufacturer or the consumer. We are fortified in our view because of the operative part of the said judgment, which is to the following effect : -