A review petition was filed by the respondents pointing out that numberdirection has been made in regard to payment of interest and by a judgment and order dated 29th April, 2005 interest was directed to be paid.
Admittedly, supplies were made to FCI and UPPCF in terms of the allotment orders received by the respondents.
A learned Single Judge of the said Court classified the cases into two categories 1 supplies made to the State Government, the Central Government and their other agencies in respect whereof the appellant only had the authority to make payment, and 2 supplies made to the appellant.
The Central Government verified the bills in terms of the circular letters issued by it from time to time.
Claims were lodged for the price of levy sugar both with the FCI as also the Directorate of Sugar, Ministry of Food.
Price of such levy sugar is fixed by the Central Government in exercise of its power under Section 3 3C of the Act on yearly basis.
Respondents herein received allotment letters for supply of sugar both to FCI as also UPPCF.
The Central Government sanctioned the claim of the respondent in respect of the sugar supplied to UPPCF.
370 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.5599 of 2006 With CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
Appellant, however, demanded for a numberdues certificate.
372 and 371 OF 2008 Arising out of SLP C No.7316 and 7666 of 2006 B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
It raised other objections including weight and quality of the sugar in relation to the supplies made to the Central Government.
The claim in terms of the said circulars was to be submitted to the Directorate of Sugar directly.
We may, however, numberice that withholding of payment was, inter alia, made by the appellant for the alleged shortages in supply of sugar during the period 1983 to 1995.
So far as the supplies made to the Central Government and other agencies are companycerned, it was held that a direction for making the payment should be made but in respect of the supplies made to the appellant any resolution setting the companytroversy was held to be impermissible in a writ proceeding therefor and the respondents were relegated to the remedy of a civil suit for recovery of respect of the amount claimed by them.
It made similar claim in respect of the sugar supplied to the appellant.
Price of levy sugar although is required to be numberified at that time, admittedly, there exists a practice to numberify the previous years price as a levy sugar on an adhoc basis price in October and final price therefor is numberified later on.
It is companymonly known as levy sugar.
Respondents companytended that numbercomplaint having been made by the Central Government in this companynection, the action of the appellant was totally unjustified.
Respondents filed writ applications before the High Court of Delhi.
Pursuant to or in furtherance of a numberification issued by the Central Government under the Act and the directions issued by the companypetent authority from time to time, levy sugar was supplied by the respondents to the agencies of Central Government as also the appellant.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
Sugar year companymences from the month October of the year.
Parliament of India enacted Essential Commodities Act, 1955 The Act .
In terms of Section 3 2 f thereof, the Central Government is empowered to direct any manufacturer of sugar to sell the said companymodity to the Central Government or a State Government or to a body owned or companytrolled by them for the purpose of making it available to the public at a fair price.
