N MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
LAWS(APH)-1992-3-24
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on March 10,1992

N.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B.Subhashan Reddy, J. - (1.)The petitioner seeks the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the third respondent-Co-operative Sugar Factory to purchase the quantity of 375 tonnes of sugar-cane. The prayer is rather peculiar as normally one comes across the act of evasion by the sugar-cane growers to sell to the sugar factory as elsewhere they may get good prices. But here is a case where the petitioner wants to thrust purchase on the third respondent for his own reasons. The reason advanced by the petitioner is that, but for the letter dated 9-8-1989 permitting the petitioner to raise sugar-cane on an additional area of Ac.8-50 cents he would not have raised that sugar-cane on that area. The petitioner's complaint is that before raising the sugar-cane on the additional extent of land, he lad made an application on 25-5-1989 and the third respondent considered the same and issued a confirmatory letter dated 21-6-1989 permitting the petitioner to raise sugar-cane on an additional area of Ac.8-50 cents. Now to go back and to say that the sugar-cane grown on the additional extent of land will not be purchased by the third respondent, may cause great hardships to the petitioner.
(2.)It is not, as if this Court is pronouncing any judgment-in-rem directing the respondents to purchase sugar-cane beyond the quantum of shares from any of the share-holders. But having regard to the special facts and circumstances of this case where the petitioner acting upon the representation of the third respondent contained in its letter dated 21-6-1989 raised sugar cane on the additional extent of land and now he cannot find a purchaser for the said sugar- cane crop grown on the additional extent of land, and he will be put to great hardship. 'As such' I hereby direct the third respondent to purchase the quantity of sugar-cane of 375 tonnes from the petitioner excluding the quantity already purchased and I make it clear that this is purely on the grounds of equity, having regard to the fact that the petitioner was asked by the third respondent to cultivate sugar-cane on the additional extent of land. This order shall not be deemed to be a precedent to purchase additional quantities of sugar-cane beyond the quantum of shares. I also further clarify that this relief to the petitioner shall be a one time measure for this season i.e., 1991-92 only.
(3.)With these directions the writ petition is dispposed of. No costs. Advocate's feeRs.250/-.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.