An interim order of a High Court in a writ petition does not preclude another High Court from granting a writ of mandamus to a party in a different writ petition, and a writ can be issued against a private person who is discharging a public duty.

( 1 ) THESE appsals are by the contesting respondents in the two writ petitions W. P. Nos. 1285 and 1743 of 1980, who are producers of sugar within the State of Andhra Pradesh. The Andhra Pradesh State Civil supplies Corporation Ltd. , which is ? Company registered under the companies Act, sought a writ of mandamus in ths above two writ patitiong against the appellants herein for an appropriate direction to supply sugar at the rate fixed by the Union of India, 1st respondent therein, under the Sugar price Fixation (Production years 1978-79 and 1979-80) Orders dated 17-12-79 issued under the provisions of Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order, 1979. By that order the purchasers of sugar were directed to sell levy-free sugar to the State Government or its nominee at the price mentioned therein. Similar orders, issued for production years 1974-75 and 1975-76. were challenged by several producers of sugar in various High Courts and the petitioner and some others in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. Those petitions having been dismissed by this Court, the matters were carried in appeal and the same are pending before the Supreme Court. The order fixing the price for the production year 1979-80 was challenged by way of a writ petition before the High Court of Madras by the producers of sugar who have registered offices at Madras or within the Tamilnadu State. Interim orders were granted by the Madras High Court in their favour on condition that they furnished Bank-guarantee to refund the excess amount realised by them over and above the price fixed under the Price Determination Order, challenged in those writ petitions. That order was passed on 6-3-80. It may be noticed that a. P. State Civil Supplies Corporation, which is the petitioner in these writ petitions, out of which these writ appeals arie. was not co-nomine party to the writ petitions filed and pending in the Madras High Court. The case of the A P. State Civil Supplies Corporation in these Writ Appeals is that in view of the fixation of the price under the above referred order and the directions of the Central Government under Levy- fee Sugar Supply (Control) order, the Appellant-sugar factories are bound to supply sugar at the price fixed theerunder and accordingly sought a writ of mandamus. Granting of any such writ, direction or order is resisted by the Sugar-producers, primarily on the ground that in the writ petitions filed before the Madras High Court, the Central Government has suffered an interim order, which has become final under which they are entitled to sell sugar at a higher price subject only to ths giving of Bank-guarantee. As such the Central Government itself is not entitled to compel the producers of sugar to sell at the price determined by it and consequently the A. P. State Civil Supplies Corporation which is only a nominee of the State Government, which is in turn, a nominee of the Central Government, cannot be granted a writ of mandamus. According to the learned counsel Sri Vijayaraghavan that would be in the teeth of the order the Madras High Court. In that context he also stresses the fact that while the Andhra Pradesh High Court, Allahabad High Court and Gujarat Hight Court have upheld the price fixation under the Order made by the Central Government, the Madras High Court has taken a different view and quashed the said orders and hence having regard to the view already taken by the Madras High Court, in all probability, the writ petitions now psnding before it would also be allowed. In any event the central Government having suffered the interim ordtr, go long as that order is not vaoated, cannot direct supply of sugar at the price notified by it under the impugned order. Our learned brother Ramachandra Rao, J. , was of the view that the appellants herein having unsuccessfully challenged the price fixation and the Division Bench of this Court having upheld the notification fixing the price, the A. P. State Civil Supplies Corporation