GANPATI SUGAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED Vs. COMMISSIONER AND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR AND CANE COMMISSIONER HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a Mandamus to set aside the proceedings dated 15.05.2006 and the consequential proceedings dated 12.06.2006 of respondent No. 1.

(2.) The petitioners were running a sugar factory in Medak District near Sangareddy. A factory zone was allotted to them by respondent No. 1 for a period of five crushing seasons comprising 295 Villages in ten Mandals of Medak District and 98 Villages in four Mandals of Ranga Reddy District on 28.07.1995. Thereafter on 05.02.2000, a fresh factory zone was declared for the seasons 1999-2000 to 2003- 04 by including 393 Villages. By another proceedings dated 01.10.2004, the factory zone was declared for five crushing seasons from 2004-05 onwards, comprising 470 Villages in seventeen Mandals i.e., eleven Mandals of Medak District and six Mandals of Ranga Reddy District. The petitioners obtained a fresh Industrial Entrepreneur Memorandum (IEM) on 06.06.2005. On 02.05.2006, the petitioners made an application to respondent No. 1 for declaring factory zone in respect of the new unit. Respondent No. 3 obtained IEM for establishing a sugar factory at Ranga Reddy District on 08.05.2006 and on the same day, it applied for allotment of factory zone. By proceedings dated 15.05.2006, respondent No. 1 declared the factory zone for respondent No. 3 comprising 391 Villages in thirteen Mandals of Mahaboobnagar District and 299 Villages in nine Mandals of Ranga Reddy District for five crushing seasons on temporary basis commencing from 2006-07 season. Consequently, the petitioners' application for declaration of factory zone was rejected by respondent No. 1, vide his letter dated 12.06.2006. These two proceedings are assailed in the present writ petition.

(3.) Separate counter-affidavits had been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and respondent No. 3. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Deputy Cane Commissioner, Office of respondent No. 1, it is inter alia averred that petitioner No. 1 has submitted the IEM for establishment of a new sugar factory with 2500 TCD at Marepally Village, Peddemul Mandal in Ranga Reddy District along with a feasibility report and request letter dated 02.05.2006 to respondent No. 1 for allotment of factory zone by proposing twelve Mandals of Ranga Reddy District for the proposed new unit; that respondent No. 1, vide his memo dated 09.05.2006, has directed the Assistant Cane Commissioner, Sangareddy, to submit report/remarks for the proposed new sugarcane of respondent No. 3 and that a report was accordingly submitted on 15.05.2006, based on which respondent No.1 has declared the zone area, vide proceedings dated 15.05.2006. It is further averred that as only two Mandals were left unallotted after allotment of nine Mandals in Ranga Reddy District to respondent No. 3, it would not be feasible to allot those remaining Mandals to the petitioners' proposed unit. It is further stated that respondent No. 1 has declared the factory zone in favour of respondent No. 3 for five crushing seasons on temporary basis keeping in view the interests of cane growers. The counter-affidavit relied on Section 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') and has also referred to the fact that the petitioners are already having a sugar factory at Sangareddy, Medal District and respondent No. 3 being a new entrepreneur and with a view to encourage the new promoter, the request of respondent No. 3 was considered. The counter-affidavit has also raised objection to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of availability of alternative remedy under Section 17 of the Act.