Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. In view of the factual matrix as noted above, we have heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the record.

16. The parties are at idem to the extent that challenge/issue raised in this petition is the same as that arose in the petitions filed by the Indapur Dairy and Milk Products Ltd vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr ("Indapur Dairy" for short), Parag Milk Foods Ltd., Pune vs. The State of Maharashtra ("Parag Milk Foods" for short), followed by VRS Foods Ltd vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors ("VRS Foods" for short).

However, as Ms. Bhende, learned AGP has informed us that the orders passed by this Court in Parag Milk Foods Limited have been challenged in the Supreme Court and there is a likelihood that some interim orders would be passed, we had adjourned the proceedings for today. However, Ms. Bhende has fairly stated that as on date, no interim orders were passed. She would also not dispute that the facts of the case are similar to the facts of the proceedings which stand adjudicated in the decisions in Indapur Dairy and Milk Products Limited, Parag Milk Foods Limited and VRS Foods Limited.

37. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."

21. Ms. Bhende, learned AGP for the respondent-State would fairly submit that the pivotal challenge in this petition is covered by the decisions of this court in the case of Indapur Dairy followed by Parag Milk Foods and VRS Foods, respectively. She would however urge that the decision in the case of Parag Milk Food is assailed by the respondent before the Supreme Court, where a SLP is pending as on date.

Commissioner, Dairy Development Maharashtra State, Mumbai."

(emphasis supplied)

23. Ms. Bhende, would not controvert the above, neither the fact that the respondent-State has accepted the judgment in Indapur Dairy in totality, as a consequence of which the full payment of the export subsidy amounting to about Rs.24,87,50,000/- was made to Indapur Dairy. She would not dispute that the said decision in Indapur Dairy was followed by this Court in Parag Milk Foods and VRS Foods rendered by coordinate benches of this Court. We are therefore of the considered view that the respondent-State having fully accepted the judgment in Indapur Dairy and accordingly made payments of the export subsidy to it, which was then followed by the Court in Parag Milk Foods and VRS Foods of this Court, make it abundantly clear that these are all identically placed entities, who at all material times were treated at par and held entitled to 10-WP-1818-2025.AS.doc subsidies qua the amounts as set out in the reports and the Government Resolution as relied by us. Thus the petitioner in law ought to be treated on an equal footing as Indapur Dairy. Needless to state that in such similar facts and circumstances as in the case of Indapur Dairy, we are bound by the subsequent decisions in Parag Milk Foods and VRS Foods even as a matter of judicial prudence and discipline. There is no ground whatsoever on which the petitioner could be denied the benefit.