The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State lacked the statutory basis to levy an Advisory Price over and above the minimum price fixed by the Central Act, and the enactment of the Tamil Nadu Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase Price) Act, 2018 provided the statutory basis for such levy.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the First Respondent comprised in its G.O.Ms.No.252 Agricultural Department (K1) dated 24.12.2013 and the records of the Second Respondent comprised in its consequent letter in Rc.No.3774/Cane.1/2013 dated 8.1.2014 and quash the same as being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and ultra vires the provisions of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, and consequently forbear the First and Second Respondents from declaring any other price over and above the Fair and Remunerative Price fixed by the Third Respondent under Clause 3(1) of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966 in respect of sugarcane purchased by the members of the petitioner for the sugar season 2013-14 and onwards.)

1. The State of Tamil Nadu houses a total of 43 sugar mills, of which two constitute public sector mills, 16 are Cooperative Sugar Mills and 25, private mills. The present Writ Petition is filed by the South Indian Sugar Mills Association in which,12 of the 16 private mills are members, represented by Mr.Satish Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Mr.R.Parthasarathy.

2. The petitioner mills are engaged in the manufacture and trading of sugar. Sugar and sugarcane have been declared to be essential commodities by the Government of India under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (in short ‘Act’). In line with the powers conferred under Article 3 of the Act, Sugarcane (Control) Order 1966 (in short ‘Control Order’) has been issued, which provides for various procedures and regulations in connection with the production, including licencing, pricing and transportation of sugarcane.

3. The object of the Act and Control Order is to ensure that a balance is struck between the interests of all stakeholders engaged in supply of sugar, i.e., cane growers, the sugar mills and the consumer. Having balanced their interests, such equilibrium is set against the context of adequacy in supply of sugar for every sugar production season. In Tamil Nadu, the Tamil Nadu Sugar Factories Control Act, 1949 (in short ‘1949 Act’) held the field, till the passing of the 1955 Act which, by virtue of Section 16 of the Act, reading as follows, repealed earlier State enactments in regard to the supply of this commodity:

“16. Repeals and savings.-(1) The following laws are hereby repealed

(a) theEssential Commodities Ordinance, 1955 (1 of 1955);

(b) any other law in force in any State immediately before the commencement of this Act insofar as such law controls or authorizes the control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in, any essential commodity.

(2) Notwithstanding such repeal, any order made or deemed to be made by any authority whatsoever, under any law repealed hereby and in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall, insofar as such order may be made under this Act, be deemed to be made under this Act and continue in force, and accordingly any appointment made, licence or permit granted or direction issued under any such order and in force immediately before such commencement shall continue in force until and unless it is superseded by any appointment made, licence or permit granted or direction issued under this Act."

(3) The provision of sub-section (2) shall be without prejudice to the provision contained in section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897), which shall also apply to the repeal of the Ordinance or other law referred to in sub-section (1) as if such Ordinance or other law had been an enactment.”

4. Thus, and in effect, the material provisions of the 1959 State enactment have been rendered inoperative, being Sections 6 to 12. There was some discussion in regard to this aspect of the matter and certain apprehensions were expressed on the po