Judgment

BEG, J.:- The appellants are manufacturers of sugar, who have come before us after certification of their cases as fit for appeal to this Court under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution. They challenged the notification dated 28-6-1967 issued by the Central Government under Clause 7 of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966, fixing ex-factory prices for sugar factories specified in the notification. It appears that, in the Writ Petitions filed in the High Court for quashing the impugned notification and appropriate orders in the nature of Mandamus, the validity of Section 3 of the Essential Supplies Act 10 of 1955, as well as of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966, issued under it were questioned. But, before us, the appellants have confined their arguments to contentions based on the correctness of the method adopted in fixing prices of sugar manufactured in various States, and the alleged failure of the Central Government to take into account the fact that there was an Initial fixation of prices of sugar by a notification dated 1-2-1967 followed by a final fixation on 28-6-1967. According to the appellants, appropriate adjustments or allowances should have been made in the final fixation by a notification of 28-6-1967. We are therefore, not concerned now with any question relating to the validity of clause 7 of the Sugar (Control) Order under which the notifications were issued.

2. The relevant clause 7 reads as follows:

" 7. Power to fix sugar prices:-

(1) The Central Government may from time to time by notification in the official Gazette, fix the price or the maximum price at which any sugar may be sold or delivered and different prices may be fixed for different areas or different factories or different types or grades of sugar.

(2) Such price or maximum price shall be fixed having regard to the estimated cost of production of sugar determined on the basis of the relevant schedule of cost given in the Report of the Sugar Enquiry Commission (October 1965), subject to the adjustment of such rise in cost subsequent to the Report aforesaid as, in the opinion of the Central Government, cannot be absorbed by the provision for contingencies in the relevant schedule to that Report.

(3) Where the price or the maximum price has been so fixed, no person shall sell or purchase or agree to sell or purchase any sugar at a price in excess of that fixed under sub-clause (1);

Provided that the price at which sugar may be sold for delivery otherwise than ex-factory shall not exceed the price or the maximum price, as the case may be, fixed under sub-clause (1) for sale ex-factory plus such charges in respect of transport to any town or any specified area and other incidental charges as may be fixed by the concerned State Government or by any officer authorised in this behalf by the Central Government or that State Government in accordance with the instructions issued by the Central Government in this behalf from time to time".

3. Clause 7 (2), set out above, requires the Government to fix the price "having regard to the estimated cost of production of sugar on the basis of the relevant schedule". "The expression `have regard to" only obliges the Government to consider as relevant data material to which it must have regard (See Ryots of Garabandho v. Zamindar of parlalkimedi, 70 Ind App 129 . The appellants concede that this is the effect of language of clause 7 (2). It is evident that the price fixed is an estimated maximum price chargeable because the manufacturer cannot charge more. Furthermore, it should be noted that the only "adjustment" provided for is before a fixation of the estimated price "having regard" to the basis provided by the relevant schedule, but there is no obligation whatsoever cast upon the Government to make any "adjustment" to compensate for losses due to any previous erroneous fixations. Indeed, such attempted adjustments may seem to be unfair to subsequent consumers who ought not, it could be argued, be made to pay fo