SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1979 Supreme(Online)(All) 26

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



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Adv. A
Adv. B
Adv. C
For the Respondents: Adv. X
Adv. Y

The fixation of sugarcane prices must consider the current year's production costs and not rely on previous seasons' recoveries, ensuring proper stakeholder consultation.

Headnote:(A) Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 - Clause 3 - Minimum price fixation - Notification dated 1st October, 1978 challenged regarding the basic minimum price of ₹10/- per quintal for 1978-79, ignoring relevant factors such as cost of production and recovery rates. (Paras 1, 5, 19)

(B) Consultation - Requirement of genuine consultation with stakeholders not met; however, the consultation with Agricultural Prices Commission was deemed sufficient. (Paras 4, 19)

Facts of the case:
Multiple sugar factories challenged the Government's fixation of sugarcane prices for the season 1978-79, contending it did not reflect the true costs and was arbitrary. (Paras 1, 5)

Findings of Court:
The notification fixing minimum price was quashed, and the case of previous years' sugarcane prices was remanded for reconsideration under appropriate provisions. (Paras 20-22)

Issues: The legality and reasonableness of the notification setting sugarcane prices and the consultation process prior to fixing these rates. (Paras 5, 19)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that prior recovery rates from the previous season were improperly used for fixing current prices, emphasizing that costs from the prior year cannot dictate the present year’s pricing, nor can the mandatory consultation be a mere formality. (Paras 8, 10)

Result: Petitions allowed, pricing notification quashed with directions for re-fixation.

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
































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top