MANDAMUS TO DECIDE PENDING REPRESENTATIONS FOR SUGARCANE COMPENSATION WITHIN SPECIFIED TIMELINE AFTER AFFORDING HEARING OPPORTUNITY.

The petitioner, a sugarcane farmer, filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to direct the State and Jai Shree Sugar Mill (Respondent No. 7) to pay compensation of Rs. 40,000 plus interest for wasted sugarcane that remained standing and was not supplied to the mill.

The petitioner alleged that the waste occurred due to the latches and negligence of the Sugar Mill.

The State (Respondent Nos. 3 and 4) filed a counter-affidavit stating that the Mill had issued a public notice on 10.04.2014, requesting farmers to supply sugarcane before 25.04.2014, after which the Mill would not be liable.

The State contended that the petitioner failed to take steps to supply the cane despite free distribution of challans.

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for wasted sugarcane allegedly caused by the negligence of the Sugar Mill and State authorities.

2. Whether the court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct the authorities to decide upon the pending representations of the petitioner.

The court exercised its discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus to compel public authorities to perform their legal duties.

Specifically, the court applied the principle of administrative responsiveness, requiring authorities to consider and pass reasoned orders on representations made by citizens regarding grievances involving statutory or contractual obligations between farmers and sugar factories.

The Court did not adjudicate on the merits of the negligence claim or the entitlement to the specific sum of Rs. 40,000. Instead, it focused on the procedural aspect of the petitioner's pending grievances.

While the respondents presented a defense based on a deadline notice (25.04.2014) and the petitioner’s failure to act, the Court noted that several representations remained pending before the authorities without resolution.

To ensure due process, the Court determined that the most appropriate remedy was to direct the District Sugarcane Officer (Respondent No. 4) to conduct a factual inquiry and provide the petitioner with a hearing to resolve the dispute at the administrative level.

Consequently, Respondent No. 4 was ordered to pass an appropriate order after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard within three months of filing said representation. All interlocutory applications were also disposed of.