( 1 ) THE present case reflects and demonstrates, the petitioner left no stone unturned to exploit the procedural wrangles to defeat the ends of justice. Justice appears to be endlessly elusive even after an award obtained by poor agriculturists who are in a zone marked by growing hunger and a fragile equilibrium. Any delay in receiving the award amount which they are entitled will push them a decade back leaving them to their own plight in a society that showed no concern for them.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of the case lie in a narrow compass are as under: on petitioner s establishing an industry for the manufacture of sugar, alcohol based chemicals etc. , necessary notification was issued declaring factory zone under the provisions of the A. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961 (for short "the Act" ). On issuance of such notification, the sugar factory has to enter into an agreement with the sugarcane growers of the factory area declared to purchase the sugarcane as per Rule 20 (2) of the A. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and purchase) Rules, 1961 (for short "the Rules" ). . The issuance of notification disentitles the sugarcane growers from supplying the cane grown by them to any other factory or manufacturing of jaggery from the sugarcane grown by them. The petitioner accordingly entered into an agreement with R-4 to r-7 for supply of cane in 1992-1993 and 1993-94 season when it ripe for harvesting in September, 1993. Respondents 4 and 5 planted sugarcane crop in an extent of ac. 10-00 cents and Respondents 6 and 7 in an extent of Ac. 3-50 cents each on entering into the said agreements. When the crop is ready for harvesting, unless the petitioner- factory issues cutting orders, they cannot cut and transport the same to the sugar factory nor can supply to any other factory nor utilize the same for manufacturing jaggery. Failure to issue cutting permits which resulted in loss to the Respondents 4 to 7, they invoked the arbitration clause in para 5 of the agreement which provides that in the event of second party (petitioner- factory) wilfully failing to take delivery of cane which the first party is read to deliver in accordance with the agreement, the second party shall be liable to pay to the first party the actual price of the quantity of such cane which it fails to purchase together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum for the period of delay in such payment, by making their claim before the Cane commissioner, who appointed Joint Director of Agriculture, Nellore as Arbitrator vide proceedings in Cl/12002/1994 dated 8-11-1994. The Arbitrator passed an award rejecting the claim but awarded nominal compensation of Rs. 75,000/ -. Aggrieved by the same, the Respondents 4 to 7 filed an appeal before the Director of Sugar and Cane commissioner, Hyderabad, who dismissed the same in RC No. 12002/1994 dated 15. 5. 1996. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents 4 to 7 filed WP No. 2009/1996 before this Court, which was allowed on 18-8-1998 remanding the matter for fresh consideration. On such remand, the Arbitrator (Joint Director of Agriculture, Nellore) while disbelieving the version of the petitioner factory about its function during the period from August, 1993 to January, 1994 and issuing cutting permits during the said months in the light of reply sent by the factory dated 6-12-1993, Ex. A-22 and genuineness of which is not disputed by the factory, passed an award directing the petitioner-factory to pay total compensation at Rs. 10,15,000/- with interest at 9% per annum till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the second Respondent. For due recovery of the amount awarded under award, the Respondents 4 to 7 filed EP no. 23/2000 before the II Additional District judge s Court, Nellore. In view of the same, the petitioner filed WP No. 25191/2001 seeking suspension of the award pen