JUDGMENT

KRISHNA IYER, J.:—We should have made short shrift of this batch of appeals on the brief but fatal ground that the appellants - all sugar millers who had over-priced this essential consumer article and had failed in their challenge of the controlled price - had no moral nor legal claim to keep the huge sums which the High Court had rightly directed them to disgorge. When the price of levy sugar was pegged down by the State, these factory owners rushed to the Court impeaching the validity of the control and secured a stay of operation of the order. Under cover of the Court s stay order which was granted, on bank guarantee for the excess price being furnished to the Court, the appellants sold sugar at free market rates - a euphemism for black-market racket - unfortunately, with judicial sanction. Crores of rupees were admittedly funnelled into the millers tills. But, eventually, the High Court upheld the control of price and the unhappy obligation to restore the unjust enrichment arose. The High Court, whose process kept the control price in cold storage, had to do justice by the community of consumers who were the unwitting victims of this judiciary declared holiday from control which was quickly converted into a fleece-as you please seller situation. And so the Court made the following direction:

"We, therefore, direct that the Registrar will take immediate steps to encash the security and recover the amount so over-charged by the petitioners and pay the same to the State Government which will keep it in a separate account. The petitioners will furnish to the State Government, within a period of six weeks of this order, a list of all such persons to whom they sold the levy sugar of 1971-72 season, together with their addresses, quantity of such sugar sold to and the amount of excess price charged from each of them. The State Government will then refund to the persons concerned the excess amount realised from each of them, if necessary, after verifying the claim for refund of such amount made by such persons."

2. The reluctant millers have sought and got leave to appeal against this just direction and in the course of arguments have made some suggestions about the disposal of the 1154 moneys. The inarticulate assumption was, presumably, that crores of rupees could remain with them until a suitable scheme for percolation of the excess prices to the ultimate small buyer could be fashioned. Indeed, at some stage, a hesitant proposal was made that since the sugar industry has allegedly had lean years, these considerable sums picked from the pockets of a considerable number of consumers had better be allowed to be retained by the millers: Another diffident hint was made that these several crores of rupees be used for stabilising the sugar-cane growers economic position. The easy-to-see-through design behind these developmental ideas was to have use of this large windfall till some distant project was evolved.

3. Indubitably, the appellants are in unrighteous enjoyment of colossal sums which belong to small consumers. Not a moment more can the millers keep what the Court has ordered the Registrar to collect by enforcing the bank guarantees. Indeed, they have had dubious business use of these vast sums for a few years - nearly a year, even after the High Court s final judgment. Once we disenchanted them, as arguments proceeded, that the conscience of the Court would unconditionally compel the money to be called in forthwith their interest in making fertile pro bono publico suggestions as to how best to organise the disbursement of the small sums to the actual buyers flagged and, later in the day, Shri Dadachanji, Advocate-on-record in these cases, even moved that if leave had not been formally granted, the special leave petitions be allowed to be withdrawn and if leave had been already granted, Court-fee exemption for these many appeals may be directed. This shows up the public concern of these sugar manufacturers. Anywa