( 1 ) THOUGH three points of difference have been noted by my two revered brothers Honble R. R. K. Trivedi and Honble; R. K. Singh, JJ. in this bunch of writ petitions but the principal difference appears to be relating to the alleged claim of the Collector demanding 10% of recovery charges amounting to about Rs. 44 lacs on what was supposed to have been due against the petitioners liability having arisen under Section 17 (4) of the U. P. Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953.

( 2 ) IN a nutshell the factual difference should be summarised before adverting to the aforesaid three points. There was a challenge as to the liability of the petitioners who are Sugar Mills to the demand of the Cane Commissioner on what should have been termed as payment of sugar cane price to the cane growers. Whether or not the State Advised Price was rightly demanded by the Cane Commissioner was initially the question. However, on the demand being raised by the cane Commissioner, all the petitioners came up to this Court by various writ petitions and obtained interim orders but finally the writ petitions were dismissed and the stay order stood vacated. The Honble Suprem