Markandeya Katju, C.J.

1. These Letter Patent Appeals have been filed against a common judgment by the learned Single Judge of this court on 24.09.2004 in Writ Petition Nos. 2163/1996, 4504/1997 and 6154/2003. Since all these appeals involve common questions of law and fact, we are disposing them off together.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.

4. The appellant in LPA No. 1131/04 Mawana Sugar Ltd. (formerly known as M/s SIEL Ltd.), and other petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the right of the Food Corporation of India to make deductions for the short supply and/or wet I damaged supply of levy sugar in the past from amounts to be paid in the subsequent bills of the sugar mills.

5. To understand the controversy we may state a few facts. Sugar is an essential commodity under the .Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Under Section 3 (2) (D of the said Act, the Central Government has the power to direct any manufacturer of sugar to sell sugar produced by it to the Central Government or a State Government or to a body owned or controlled by the government, for the purpose of making sugar available to the public at a fair price. This is known as levy sugar, which is normally available to the public in the fair price shops all over the country.

6. The price payable for levy sugar is fixed by the Central Government under Section 3 (3) (c) of the Act. Such levy sugar price is fixed year to year.

7. Though the sugar year commences from October and the levy sugar price ought to be notified in October, the practice which was being followed was that the previous year's price was temporarily notified as a levy sugar price in October and the final price was thereafter notified in January, and the balance was reimbursed by the government to the sugar mills. Thus, for the year 1993-94, the old price of 1992-93 was temporarily notified in October 1993 and the final price was notified in January 1994, On 18.03.1994 the Central Government informed the sugar factories that the difference between the temporarily notified price and the final price would be reimbursed to the sugar mills. This decision was communicated to the Food Corporation of India on 05.03.1994 and pursuant to that the sugar mills lodged their claims for the balance.

8. As regards sugar supplied to the Food Corporation of India, the practice was that the sugar mills submitted their bills directly to the FCI. However, for supply of sugar to other bodies in pursuance of the direction of the Central Government, the sugar mills filed their claims before the Central Government and the Central Government, after scrutiny and verification of these bills, directed the FCI to make the payments. Since some of these payments were not made the sugar mills filed these writ petitions.

9. The version of the FCI is that there was wet and short supply of sugar by the sugar mills, and the amount over paid is liable to be adjusted against the amount payable subsequently to the sugar mills. It may be noted that these disputed amounts relate to almost a period of 15 years before the deduction in the subsequent bills. The FCI had claimed reimbursement from the railways but the railways refused to grant it.

10. In para 2 of the writ petition, the petitioner alleged that it has a sugar factory called Mawana Sugar Works situated in Mawana, District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Since sugar is an essential commodity the Central Government has made the Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order, 1979. Clause 2 of the Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order gives the Central Government power to issue orders directing the producer of sugar to supply levy sugar to State Governments or organisations or nominees specified in the orders at a price not exceeding the price determined by the Central Government under Section 3(3)(c) of the Essential Commoditi