( 1 ). A batch of Civil (including the above-mentioned two appeals), special leave petitions, writ petitions, transfer petitions and transferred cases challenging the fixation of price of levy sugar for the years 1974-75 to 1979-80, by orders issued under Section 3 (3-C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, was disposed of by this court by a common judgment dated 22/9/1993. This court held that the impugned orders/notifications were bad as the price was not fixed in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. However, it did not quash the notifications as they would have led to a nebulous situation during the interregnum till refixation of price. Instead of quashing the said notifications it directed the Union of India to amend the notifications taking into account the liability of producers of sugar under clause 5-A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "1996 Order"), having regard to the factors mentioned in Section 3 (3-C) of the Act. The government was also directed to issue the amended notifications by 31/12/1993.

( 2 ). The Union of India was not satisfied with the judgment and, therefore, filed Review Petitions Nos. 211 and 212 of 1994 on 15/11/1993. They were dismissed on 23/2/1994. The Union of India had also filed an application on 24/12/1993 for directions/clarifications and extension of time. The clarification was sought for on the following ground:

"it is submitted that the decision of this Honble court lends itself to two different interpretations as mentioned below:

(A) The amount of additional cane price payable by sugar factories at the end of each season is to be added to the SMP of sugarcane while computing the element of cost as per Factor a of Section 3 (3-C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for purposes of price fixation;

(B) The levy sugar prices may be refixed taking into account only Factors a to d of Section 3 (3-C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. "it wanted this court to clarify:

". . . whether the revised levy sugar price should be the sum total of Factors a, b, c and d of Section 3 (3-C) of the Essential Commodities Act in case of price fixation. "

( 3 ). That application was dismissed with costs but the time for implementation of the judgment was extended up to 30/11/1994 peremptorily. In spite of this direction the government did not issue the required notifications within time. It issued the following six notifications on 22/2/1995:

1. No. GSR 76 (E)/ess. Com. /sugar dt. 22/2/1995 1974-75.

2. No. GSR 777 (E)/ess. Com. /sugar dt. 22/2/1995 1975-76.

3. No. GSR 78 (E)/ess. Com. /sugar dt. 22/2/1995 1976-77.

4. No. GSR 79 (E)/ess. Com. /sugar dt. 22/2/1995 1977-78.

5. No. GSR 80 (E)/ess. Com. /sugar dt. 22/2/1995 1978-79.

6. No. GSR 81 (E)/ess. Com. /sugar dt. 22/2/1995 -1979-80.

( 4 ). It is the grievance of the applicants that the said notifications have been issued in disregard and contravention of the judgment of this court inasmuch as the government, while refixing the levy sugar price for the said six years, has failed to include in such refixation the element of additional cane price payable by the producers under clause 5-A of the 1966 Order. They, therefore, want this court to give appropriate directions to the Union of India to forthwith comply fully and effectively with the judgment by issuing supplemental notifications providing for additional levy sugar price. Applicant I in both these applications is the Indian Sugar Mills Association and it has filed the applications on behalf of all its members. Applicants 3 to 33 are some of its members and were parties to the above-referred batch of cases. Though the government, while issuing the said six notifications, did not take into consideration the additional cane price payable by the producers of sugar under clause 5-A yet the stand taken by them is that the said notifications are consistent with the judgment of this court. The contentions raised in this behalf by them are the same as were tak