Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, A.C.J.—M/s Simbhaoli Sugars Limited a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, having its registered office at Simbhaoli, District Hapur engaged in the manufacture of white crystal sugar is before this Court challenging the demand notices, in terms of which State/Respondents seek to recover 10% collection charges pursuant to recovery proceeding.

2. Brief background of the case is that for crushing season 2014-15 cane price and interest on the same has not been paid to cane growers, in view of this, notice has been sent to the petitioners informing that they have fallen into default in payment of cane price alongwith interest. Petitioner’s Company was put to notice by issuing a recovery certificate dated 12.10.2015 by the office of Cane Commissioner requiring it to pay the sums mentioned therein towards cane price with interest thereon, failing which coercive action as is envisaged under Sections 17 and 18 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulations of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 was to be undertaken. Petitioners submit that sum of Rs. 18132.42 (Eighteen Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Two point Forty Two Lacs) has been directly paid to the Cane Co-operative Societies by means of cheques received by the Co-operative Cane upto 19.2.2016. Petitioners submit that they have made entire payment of balance of cane price. Thereafter, respondents authorities issued impugned demand notice dated 24.2.2016 and 18.3.2016, seeking 10% collection charges on the amount paid due to coercive process i.e. Rs. 18132.42 (Eighteen Thousand One Hundred and Thirty Two point Forty Two Lacs) directly to the Cane Co-operative Societies.

3. Petitioners on the presentation of the writ petition in question have been informed that in the citation in question, interest amount due to inadvertence has been left out and accordingly revised demand notice has also been issued and same has been subjected to challenge by means of amendment application writ petition and same has been allowed. By means of said demand notice petitioners have been informed that coercive measure has been initiated for recovery of cane dues to the tune of Rs. 18132.42 Lacs and on account of the same cane price to the tune of Rs. 16041.71 Lacs has only been deposited whereas interest on delayed payment to the tune of Rs. 2090.68 lacs has not been deposited and on the total amount due 10% recovery charges have not been paid.

4. Petitioners have also filed supplementary-affidavit alongwith chart showing progress report of the Cane Price payment by the petitioners and other sugar mills as well as copy of the representation made before the Competent Authority for waiving of the interest for the year 2014-15 and the fact that same is pending consideration.

5. Based on pleadings available and instruction that has been so received by the State Government as well as by Cane Union, present matter has been taken up for final hearing/disposal with the consent of the parties.

6. Sri S.D. Singh, Senior Advocate, appearing with Sri Rohan Gupta, Advocate submitted before this Court that in the facts of the present case, as is provided for under sub-section (3) of Section 17, for the waiver of the interest for the crushing Season 2014-15, an application has already been moved under U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Act, 1953 and said application has not been disposed of, in view of this, no coercive action should be taken for recovery of interest amount and 10% amount i.e. being charged towards recovery is perse bad and in teeth of full Bench judgement rendered in the case of Mahrajwa v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(1) ADJ 426, as such this Court should come to the rescue and reprieve of petitioner’s Company as sugar industry is passing through a very lean phase.

7. The request that has been made on behalf of petitioners has been resisted by learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Ravindra Singh, Advocate by submitting that it is true that principal