The Central Government alone has the power to fix the minimum price of sugarcane, and the State Government cannot fix the State advised cane price.

( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 15-11-1996 Annexure 1 to the petition and have prayed for a direction restraining the respondents from taking any coercive steps to enforce the payment of the State advised, cane price as declared by the impugned order.

( 2 ) WE have heard Sri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Sri sudhir Chandra and Sri Tarun Agarwal, Advocates.

( 3 ) WE have also heard Shri Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondents 1 and 2 and Shri Shashi Nandan for respondent No. 3.

( 4 ) PETITIONERS No. 1, 2 and 3 are Associations of Sugar Factories in U. P. while petitioners No. 4 to 34 are companies owing sugar factories in Uttar Pradesh.

( 5 ) THE short question involved in this case is whether the State Advised cane price fixed by the state Government is legally valid.

( 6 ) THE petitioners No. 4 to 34 ate engaged in the business of production and sale of sugar by the vacuum pan process. The raw-material used for the production of sugar is sugarcane which is purchased through cane growers co-operative societies.

( 7 ) THE Central Government exercising power under the Essential Commodities Act promulgated the Sugarcance (Control) Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the 1966 Order ). Clause 3 (1)of the said order states as follows :

"the Central Government may, after consultation with such authorities, bodies or association as it may deem fit, by notification in the official Gazette, from time to time, fix the minimum price of sugarcane to be paid by producers of sugar or their agents for the sugarcane purchased by them, having regard to (a) the cost of production of sugarcane; (b) the return to the grower from alternative crops and the general trend of prices of agricultural commodities; (c) the availability of sugar to the consumer at a fair price; (d) the price at which sugar produced from sugarcane is sold by producers of sugar; and (e) the recovery of sugar from sugarcane : provided that the Central Government or, with the approval of the Central Government, the State government may, in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as specified in Clause 3-A allow a suitable rebate in the price so fixed. Explanation.- (1) Different prices may be fixed for different areas or different quantities or varieties of sugarcane,"

( 8 ) A perusal of Clause 3 (1) shows that it is the Central Government alone which has the power to fix the minimum price of sugarcane to be paid by the producers of sugar or their agents for the sugarcane Purchased by them. Thus it is the Central Government alone which can fix the minimum price of sugarcane and no other authority. For the reason 1996-97, with which we are concerned, the minimum price of sugarcane has been fixed by the Central Government by its order dated 11-3-1996, true copy of which is Annexure 4 to the writ petition. A perusal of the said order shows that for the season 1996-97 the price of sugarcane fixed is Rs. 45. 90 per quintal finked to a basic recovery of 8. 5 per cent sugar subject to a premium of Rs. 0. 57 for every 0. 1 percentage increase in the recovery above that level. It is alleged in para 10 of the writ petition that as per the calculation made by the Association, the average statutory minimum cane price on the above basis for Uttar Pradesh as a whole is estimated to be Rs. 50. 33 per quintal.

( 9 ) IN addition to the statutory minimum price fixed by the order 11-3-1996 under Clause 3 (1) of the 1966 Order, the factory is also liable to pay an additional price for sugarcane purchased on or after 1-10-1974 as mentioned in Clause 5-A of the aforesaid 1966 Order. This additional price of sugarcane was fixed taking into account the Bhargava Commission Report so as to entitle the sugarcane growers ro share in the profits made by selling the non-levy sugar. The petitioners are not challenging the price fixation of sugarcane under