Judgment

BHAGWATI, J. - This is a group of applications made by the petitioners in various writ petitions for directions regarding discharge of bank guarantees given by them pursuant to interim orders made by this Court in the writ petitions. The writ petitions were filed by the petitioners in this Court challenging the validity of the Levy Sugar Supply Control Order, 1972 made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 fixing the price of levy sugar in different zones in the country, on the principal ground that the price so fixed was not in accordance with the principles laid down in Sec. 3, sub-section (3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. When the writ petitions were admitted an application was made by the petitioners in each writ petition for stay of the operation of the Levy Sugar Supply Control Order 1972 and this Court made an interim order on each of the applications staying the operation of the Levy Sugar Supply Control Order, 1972 on the petitioners in the respective writ petitions "furnishing a bank guarantee in respect of the difference between the price of sugar fixed by the Government and the price at which the sugar is actually sold" and it was provided in each of .these Orders that such guarantees shall be furnished to the satisfaction of the Registrar of this Court every month in respect of the transaction of that month within four weeks of the actual sales of that month and that this Court shall deal with such bank guarantee as to how such amount is to be distributed or paid. Pursuant to these interim orders the petitioners in each writ petition furnished bank guarantees and the result was that the operation of the Levy Sugar Supply Order, 1972 was stayed and the petitioners were free to charge open market rates for the sugar sold by them. The writ petitions were ultimately dismissed by this Court by a judgment delivered on 6th November, 1972, but during this period, unfortunately, by reason of the interim orders of stay granted by this Court, the petitioners who are manufacturers of sugar were able to funnel into their pockets large sums of money to the detriment of the small consumers. Since it was the judicial process which had kept the controlled price in cold storage and made it possible for the petitioners to fleece the helpless consumers who had no choice but to pay the higher price demanded by the petitioners it was necessary to disgorge the petitioners of the unjust enrichment made by them and to do justice to the large community of consumers who had been over-charged as a result of what has been described by this Court in another judgment as "judiciary declared holiday from control". There is no doubt that each consumer who had to pay more than the controlled price was entitled to recover the excess paid by him from the dealer who sold the sugar to him and the dealer in his turn was entitled to recover the excess paid by him from the petitioners but it would be well high impossible for the small consumer to litigate for his little sum with the dealer or the petitioners. How would he be able to meet the huge litigative costs and how long would he have to wait with long drawn out procedures, appeal, second appeal, special appeal and SC appeal? Where would he have the time and capacity to engage in such an uneven fight with the petitioners who had large resources available to them? To leave it to each small consumer to take action against the dealer or the petitioners for the purpose of recovering the little excess paid by him would be nothing short of denying relief to him and allowing the ill-gotten wealth to remain in the coffers of the petitioners. The Legislature of Uttar Pradesh, therefore, felt that something was necessary to be done in order to restore to the scattered community of small consumers their hard earned money improperly collected by the petitioners under the cover of judicial order and with that end in view it enacted the Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund Act, 31