ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
N. S. Raghavan, J
Delhi Cloth and General Mills – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 70 of 1979 | Writ Petition No. 398 of 1979 | Writ Petition No. 327 of 1979 | Writ Petition No. 135 of 1979 | Writ Petition No. 36 of 1979 | Writ Petition No. 35 of 1979
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. minimum price regulation under the sugarcane control order. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. factors for minimum price fixation as per control order. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments against the process of consultation and price fixing. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 9) |
| 4. the role of consultation and relevance of prior recoveries. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. challenges to recovery calculation period and principles. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 6. justification for considering sugar recovery periods. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 7. legality of price fixation on factory basis. (Para 15) |
| 8. contestation of transportation rebate calculations. (Para 16 , 19) |
| 9. judgment outcomes concerning minimum price and transportation rebates. (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
1. In exercise of the powers conferred by Clause '3' of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 , the Central Government issued Notification No. GSR 484 (E) / ESS. Com / Sugarcane dated 1st October, 1978 fixing the basic minimum price of sugarcane for the crushing season 1978-79 at Rs.10/- per quintal linked to a recovery of 8.5% or below with a premium of 11.7647 paise per quintal for every 0.1% increase in recovery over 8.5%. The notification also specified in the schedule annexed thereto the minimum price payable by the owners of the vacuum pan process sugar factories for the aforesaid crushing season. Different prices have been fixed for different sugar factories for sugarcane that they may purchase. The petitioners have challenged the validity of the notification both with regard to the fixation of the basic minimum price of sugarcane and the different prices for the petitioner companies specified in the schedule. In some of the petitions the validity of the order fixing the same price for the last year's standing sugarcane crop has also been challenged.
2. In this State the purchase and supply of Sugarcane is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (U.P. Act 24 of 1953), the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954 and the U.P. Sugarcane Supply and Purchase Order, 1954. Each sugar factory is required to furnish to the Cane Commissioner an estimate of the quantity of cane required by the factory during the crushing season. The Cane Commissioner on receiving the estimate reserves or assigns an area of sugarcane in consultation with the factory and the Cane Growers Co - operative Society. The factory has to purchase all the cane grown in the reserved area which is offered for sale to it and has to purchase such quantity of sugarcane grown in the assigned area and offered for sale as may be determined by the Cane Commissioner. The agreement entered into between the factory and the cane cooperatives or the cane growers envisages payment of cane price notified by the Government. Clause '3' of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 empowers the Central Government to fix the minimum price of sugarcane payable by the producer of sugar. The relevant part of clause '3' run as follows: -
"The Central Government may, after consultation with such authorities, bodies or associations 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 it may specify, 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."
3. This clause speci
State of Karnataka v. Ranganatha Reddy
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India
Ryots of Garabandho v. Zamindar of Parlakimedi
Indian Sugar and Refineries Ltd. v. Amaravathi Service Co-operative Society Ltd.
General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad v. A. V. R. Siddhanti
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.