Writ petitions under Article 226 cannot adjudicate disputed questions of fact; such matters belong to civil court jurisdiction.

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent to disburse 18% interest for the belated payment of Sugarcane Price and consequently direct the respondent should disburse Rs.10,00,000/- as a compensation to the petitioner.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the owner of the property, to an extent of 20 ares in S.No.48/1A, to an extent of 40 ares in S.No.54/1 and to an extent of 57 ares in S.No.54/3 and is cultivating agricultural crops and eking livelihood from the said lands. In the year 2015, the petitioner cultivated sugarcane crops and sent the same to the respondent from 05.04.2016 to 15.04.2016 and the respondent settled the sale amount belatedly on various dates until 2021, however, did not give any interest or compensation for the said belated payment. The petitioner made representation to the respondent on 05.03.2024 requesting to pay 18% interest for the said belated payment and to pay a sum of Rs.10 Lakhs as compensation, however, till date the respondent neither paid any interest nor paid any compensation. The learned counsel further submitted that since the respondent settled the sale amount belatedly, the petitioner is entitled for interest and compensation and prayed for appropriate orders.

3.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent submitted that the petitioner supplied 100.428 metric tonnes of sugarcane to the respondent during the crushing season and the payment was made as early as in the year 2017. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that as far as the payment for sugarcane is concerned, it is governed under the Essential Commodities Act, which is a central enactment and for every crushing season, the Union of India fixes a price called the Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP), which the concerned State has to pay to the Farmers without any deviation. For the year 2015 – 16, FRP fixed was Rs.2,300/- per tonne. The other concept of payment made by the State Government to the Farmers through an executive instruction is called the State Advisory Price (SAP), which is paid from the State Government funds over and above what has been fixed by the Union of India. For that financial year, the State had fixed an additional payment of Rs.450/- per tonne.

4.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent further submitted that as far as the payment to the petitioner is concerned FRP fixed by the Union of India was paid to the petitioner in three different installments within 2016 – 17 and the allocation of funds for SAP was done by the State Government in the year 2021 and SAP was paid to the petitioner in four different installments. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that FRP is the statutory due and that was paid to the petitioner in the year 2017 and SAP is a welfare measure granted to the Farmers and the said payment was made in the year 2021 and hence, the respondent need not pay any interest or compensation to the petitioner.

5.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6.Admittedly, the petitioner supplied 100.428 metric tonnes of sugarcane to the respondent during the year 2016. Though the respondent claim that the payment was settled in the year 2017, the petitioner claim that the respondent settled the amount belatedly in the year 2021, however, the petitioner did not produce any record with regard to the receipt of the amount from the respondent. 7.The issue involved in this writ petition is disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it can be adjudicated only before the competent Civil Forum