IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

Monday, THE fourth DAY OF August TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT

PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO : 16747 of 2008

Between:

Talla Ajay Kumar S/o T. Laxmi narayan Goud R/o H. No. 1-10-1/B, Kushaiguda, Hyderabad

..... PETITIONER

AND

1 The District Collector & Person I/C the Nizamabad Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. Sarangapur (V), Nizamabad. 2 The managing Director (I/C) the Nizamabad Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., Sarangapur (V) Nizamabad District 3 The Nizamabad Co-opertive Sugar GactoryLtd., rep by its Managing Directory (I/C) Sarangapur (V), Nizamabad District.

4 M/s. the Pioneer Distelleries Ltd., balapur (V), Dharmabad Tq. Nanded Distr., Maharashtra.

.....RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent-2 in Permitting the Respondent-4 vide Proc. No. NCSF/Sales/Molassess/2007-08, dt 28-07-2008 lifting the balance quantity of 1745. 367 Metric Tonnes of Molasses is illegal, arbitrary and without Jurisdiction and set a side the same and pass further order or orders.

Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. N.ASHOK KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent :

The Court made the following :

WRIT PETITION No.16747 OF 2008

ORDER:

The petitioner herein claims to be a shareholder of the 3^rd respondent which is a society registered under the A.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1964.

This writ petition is filed seeking a declaration that the action of the $2^{nd}$ respondent - Managing Director of the $3^{rd}$ respondent in granting extension of time to the $4^th$ respondent for lifting the Molasses as arbitrary and illegal.

It is not in dispute that the $4^{th}$ respondent herein was the successful bidder in the tenders invited by the 3^rd respondent for sale of Molasses and pursuant thereto the sale order was issued by the $2^{nd}$ respondent on 24.4.2008 alienating a quantity of 4,495.307 MT of Molasses in favour of the $4^{\rm th}$ respondent $% \Delta \omega _{0}$ out of 2007-2008 season's production. As per Condition No.5 of the Terms and Conditions of the said sale order, lifting of Molasses shall be started immediately and the same shall be completed within 40 days from the date of receipt of the sale order. Condition No.8 of sale order further made it clear that any delay or failure in lifting of the entire quantity of Molasses within the time will entail cancellation of sale order, besides forfeiture of earnest money deposit, including recovery of the consequential losses in the event of resale of non-lifted molasses.

It is alleged by the petitioner that in spite of the above said specific conditions, the $4^{th}$ respondent failed to life the molasses purchased by him within the stipulated time and the $2^nd$ respondent had erroneously extended the time for lifting the molasses by orders dated 4.6.2008, 18.6.2008 and 28.6.2008. Even as per the said extensions the $4^th$ respondent was supposed to life the entire molasses by 31.7.2008 which he failed to do.

In the circumstances, contending that the 2 nd respondent has no authority or power to extend the time for lifting the molasses by the 4 th respondent which is not only contrary to the Terms and Conditions of the sale order but also detrimental to the interest of 3 rd respondent, the present writ petition is filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

At the outset, it is to be noted that though the 3 rd respondent Sugar Factory is said to be a State Government Undertaking, nothing could be placed before this Court to show that the sale of molasses is regulated by any statutory provisions. Hence, even assuming that the impugned action of the 2 nd respondent is contrary to said Terms and Conditions of the Sale Order, the petitioner cannot maintain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of the same.

In the circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law for redressal of his grievance, if any. No costs.

G. ROHINI, J.

Dt.04.08.2008 gbs