Judgment

B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.- The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture inter alia of vanaspati. It has a plant at Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh.

2. With a view to ensure supply of vanaspati at a uniform rate throughout the country, the Government of India had evolved, in consultation with themanufacturers of vanaspati, a scheme known as "All India voluntary price control system", whereunder the manufacturers of vanaspati were obliged to sell vanaspati at a uniform price throughout the country. Oil is the main raw material for manufacturing vanaspati. Part of the oil so required was being imported through the agency of State Trading Corporation and sold to various manufacturers all over the country. Very often, the STC depot, nearest to the plant, was designated as the source from which the manufacturer was to draw the supply of imported oil. Since the manufacturers were obliged to sell vanaspati at a uniform price, the Government of India proposed to supply imported oil to all the manufacturers, wherever their plants are situated, at a uniform price. It is this aspect which gave rise to certain problems. The rates of sales tax on the sale of oil were not uniform throughout the country. Some State enactments did not levy any tax while others levied tax at rates ranging from 1% to 4%. Complaining of discrimination on this score, a number of vanaspati manufacturers approached the High Courts by way of writ petitions which were all transferred to this Court and numbered as Transferred Case No. 7 of 1981 etc. Some writ petitions were filed directly in this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution. All these matters came to be disposed of by this Court by order dated 8-2-1982 which reads as follows:

"In these writ petitions, counsel for the petitioners have expressed a desire to withdraw the petitions, provided that the Central Government and the State Trading Corporation are prepared to consider the representations which they propose to make. The learned Attorney General agrees that any representation which the petitioners and other manufacturers of vanaspati may make will be considered carefully and objectively from all relevant points of view, including the questions which are covered by the undertakings given by the parties, which have now lapsed.

We allow the petitioners to withdraw the writ petitions. We hope that the Central Government and the State Trading Corporation will take a fair and final decision on the representations of the petitioners and other manufacturers of vanaspati as expeditiously as possible, preferably before 1-9-1982. The petitioners agree that they will make their representations within one month from today.

If the Central Government decides to appoint a Committee to go into the various questions which arise in these petitions, the Committee, we are sure, will give a proper hearing to the manufacturers of vanaspati, individually, if necessary.

The amounts payable towards inland freight equalisation charges which the petitioners or some of them did not pay as a result of the stay orders passed by the various High Courts became payable when the stay orders were vacated. These amounts shall be paid, subject to such convenience as the State Trading Corporation may grant. We recommend that such of the petitioners who are liable to pay the amounts asaforesaid, may be granted the facility of paying the same in four equal monthly instalments, with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of payment, with monthly rests.

There will be no order as to costs." (The writ petitioner was not one of the petitioners in the aforesaid batch.)

3. Pursuant to the observations made in the above order, the Government of India constituted a committee known as "Parmeshwaran Committee" (hereinafter referred to as Committee) with the following terms of reference:

"1. To examine the representations submitted by individual vanaspati manufacturers and their Associations to Government before 7-3-1982 (i.e. within the time-limit fixed by the Sup