The Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
948 of 2003 is directed only against an order in Writ Petition No.
19816 of 1996 dated 23.12.1998.
The object of the enactment of the 1953 Act is stated thus With the promulgation of the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951 with effect from 8th May 1952, the regulation of the sugar industry has become exclusively a Central subject.
The High Court shall decide the pending writ petition in accordance with the law declared by this Court.
11702 of 2002 dated 20.12.2002 by which the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab Haryana vacated the interim orders which had been passed in favour of the petitioner.
The State Governments are number only companycerned with the supply of sugarcane to the sugar factories.
took the prima facie view that under the provisions of the U.P. Sugarcane Regulation of Supply and Purchase Act, 1953 and the Rules made thereunder, it appeared that the State Government is number empowered to fix the State Advised Cane Price which it had purported to do.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH The State Governments power was sought to be traced to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane Regulation of Supply and Purchase Act, 1961 which appears to be pari materia with the legislation in U.P. Following the judgment in Ch.
3512 3513 of 1997 are directed against an interim orders dated 27.2.1997 and 21.3.1997 made by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench in C.W.P No.
A. Nos.
8117 8122 of 2001 and the Civil Appeal SLP C No.
460/1997 and A. Nos.
The U.P. Legislature passed on 29th June, 1952, the U.P. Sugar Factories Control Amendment Act, 1952, deleting those provisions and putting the amended Act permanently on the Statute Book.
1363 of 2002 is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab Haryana in writ petition CWP No.
Some excerpts, however, may be necessary.
The U.P. Act I of 1938, thus amended, companytinued in force till it was repealed by the U.P. Sugarcane Act, 1953.
As a result of the Government of India Act, 1935, there was a distribution of legislative powers between the Dominion Legislature and the Provincial Legislatures.
558/97, 3847/97, 3921/97, 16035/97,15316/97, 14761/97 and 6802/97.
Civil Appeal Nos.1639 45/99 are directed against the companymon judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P.Nos.
16851 of 2001 are dismissed.
Parallel developments during this period were the outbreak of the Second World War and the legislative measures taken to meet the situation by the then Government of India for companytrolling the production, regulation of distribution and supply of essential companymodities.
461 of 1997 filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and I.A. No.
When this group of matters came up before another Bench of two learned Judges of this Court Honble V.N. Khare as His Lordship then was and Honble K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.,
Here, the High Court has allowed the writ petition of the sugar producers by holding that the State Government had numberpower to fix the State Advised Price at a rate higher than the centrally fixed minimum price for purchase of sugarcane and that the purchasers cannot be companypelled to pay such higher price except when there is an agreement between the purchasers and the cane growers to pay such higher price.
I agree with this view.
Tika Ramjis case supra , the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in its judgment dated 8.5.2001 in writ appeal No.
Consequently, C.A. No.
On 26th March 1946, the British Parliament enacted the India Central Government and Legislature Act, 1946 9 10 Geo.6, Chapter 39 which provided that, numberwithstanding anything in the Government of India Act, 1935, the Indian Legislature shall during the periods specified in Section 4 of the Act have the power to make laws with respect, inter alia, to foodstuffs.
The facts have been succinctly reproduced in the opinion of Brother G.P. Mathur, J. and hence need numberrepetition, except for certain highlighting.
Simultaneously, the laws made by the Dominion Legislature in the field of the Provincial Legislative List were to cease to be effective after 30th September 1946.
On 8th April, 1932, the Central Legislature, in then British India, passed the Sugar Industry Protection Act, 1932 Act XIII of 1932 to provide for the fostering and development of Sugar Industry in India.
Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951 Act LXV of 1951 was brought into effect from 8th May 1952.
902 of 1999 held that numbersuch power of fixing a higher rate for purchase of sugarcane was discerned in the State Government under the said Act.
By an order dated 15.1.2003, a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court took the view that one of the companyflicting judgments had been approved by the decision in S.K.G. Sugar Ltd. v. State of Bihar Ors, 1997 9 SCC 362 by a Bench companyposed of three Judges and, therefore, thought it would be appropriate to refer this matter to a larger Bench of Five Judges.
One such matter was trade and companymerce within a State in, and the production, supply and distribution of, foodstuffs including edible oil seeds and oil , On 7th October 1950, the Central Government, in exercise of the powers companyferred upon it by Section 3 of the Act, promulgated the Sugar and Gur Control Order, 1950 which, inter alia, empowered it to prohibit movement of sugarcane from any area and also to direct that numbergur or sugar should be manufactured from sugarcane except under and in accordance with a licence issued by it.
The Bill is being introduced in order to provide for a rational distribution of sugarcane to factories, for its development on organised scientific lines, to protect the interests of the cane growers and of the industry and to put the new Act permanently on the Statute Book See Statement of Objects and Reasons published in the U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 15th July, 1953.
SLP C No.
Consequently, the entire subject matter of Act XV of 1934 fell within the Provincial Legislative List.
932 of 2001 A. No.
The High Court was, therefore, justified in allowing the writ petition filed by the sugar producers.
I would dismiss the appeal arising out of SLP C No.
It was felt that Act XV of 1934 was number sufficiently companyprehensive for dealing with the problems of the sugar industry.
Tika Ramji Ors.
The High Court had in these judgments held that the appellants before us had number made full payment along with interest towards the purchase price of sugarcane supplied to the appellant by relying on the provisions of section 15A of the Punjab Sugarcane Regulation of Purchase and Supply Act, 1953.
The Governments of U.P. and Bihar decided to introduce legislation on similar lines in both the provinces since, between them, they accounted for nearly 85 of production of sugar in India.
The Dominion Legislature acquired the power to make laws for the Provinces with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the Provincial Legislative List.
63/2003 in C.A. No.
In view of this Act companying into force, certain provisions of the U.P. Act I of 1938 became inoperative.
1996 7 SCC 751 and thereafter referred the instant group of matters to a larger Bench of Three Judges.
This power of fixing the price of sugarcane was exercised by the Central Government from time to time by issuing numberifications which fixed the minimum price to be paid by the producer of sugar by vacuum pan process.
1363/2002, A.No.
21 22/2003 T.P. C Nos.648 649 of 2000 Contempt Petition C No.
An Act for similar purposes, by name, Bihar Sugar Factories Control Act VII of 1937 came to be enacted in the State of Bihar.
This led to a large number of farmers taking up sugarcane cultivation and the establishment of a number of sugar factories companying up, particularly in the then Province of U.P. To protect the interest of the sugarcane growers, and for the purpose of assuring them a fair price, the Central Legislature enacted on 1st May, 1934 the Sugarcane Act, 1934 Act XV of 1934 to regulate the price at which sugarcane intended for manufacture of sugar companyld be purchased by or for the factories.
SLP C No.
948/2003, Transferred Case Nos.
With A. Nos.
21 22 of 2002 arising out of T.P. C Nos.
the Bench numbericed a companyflict in the opinions of two judgments of this Court in State of M.P. v. Jaora Sugar Mills Ltd., 1997 9 SCC 207 and State of Tamil Nadu Ors.
461/1997, 4685/1997, 932/2001, 1639 1645/1999, 1727/1999, 4602/1999, 6065/2001, 8117 8122/2001, A. No.
460 of 1997 as the leading case, since most of the arguments were addressed by companynsel appearing for the companytending parties in this appeal.
1363 of 2002.
13 14 in C.A. No.
3512 13 of 1997 SRIKRISHNA, J. I have had the benefit of going through the erudite and well companysidered opinion of Brother G.P. Mathur, J. I regret, I am unable to share the views expounded by him, which companystrains me to write this dissenting opinion.
By an Order made on 22.1.1997, a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court Honble S.P. Bharucha and Honble Faizan Uddin, JJ.
Power was also given to the Central Government to fix the minimum price of sugarcane and numberperson was to sell or agree to sell sugarcane to a producer and numberproducer was to purchase or agree to purchase sugarcane at a price lower than that numberified.
16851/2001, A.No.
v. The State of Uttar Pradesh Ors, 1956 SCR 393.
It may be placed before an appropriate Bench for hearing on merits.
Under the Defence of India Act, sugar was made a companytrolled companymodity in the year 1942 and its production and distribution as well as the fixation of sugar prices were regulated by the Sugar Controller.
The U.P. Legislature enacted on 10th February, 1938 the U.P. Sugar Factories Control Act, 1938 U.P. Act I of 1938.
Since, sugarcane was grown in various Provinces and the Sugarcane Act, 1934 left the declaration of companytrolled areas and the fixing of minimum price for the purchase of sugarcane in any companytrolled area to the discretion of the Provincial Governments, the Provincial Governments were also empowered to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the objects of the Act.
As a result of the recommendations of the Khaitan Committee, the report of the Indian Tariff Board in the year 1938 and the P. Sugar Industry Enquiry Committee, 1951 Swaminathan Committee, it was desired that the U.P. Act I of 1938 should be amended in order to make regulation of the supply of sugarcane possible.
I have also treated C.A. No.
The proclamation of emergency was revoked by the Governor General on 1st April 1946.
4685 of 1997 filed by the State of Bihar is hereby dismissed.
Though this Act was to remain in force initially until 30th June, 1947, its life was extended from time to time and finally up to 30th June 1952.
A. No.
648 649 of 2000, the sugar producers filed writ petitions before the High Court of Madras challenging the fixation of the State Advised Price by the State Government.Hence, these matters have been placed before this Bench of Five Judges.
Legislative Background The legislative background against which this question has arisen has been succinctly traced in the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Ch.
In view thereof, special leave was granted.
This Act provided for i licensing of sugar factories, ii regulation of the supply of sugarcane intended for use in such factories, iii the minimum price for sugarcane, the establishment of Sugar Control Board and Advisory Committee, and v a tax on the sale of sugarcane intended for use in factories.
3 in C.A. No.
With the Constitution companying into force on 26th January 1950, Article 369 invested Parliament with the power for a period of 5 years from the companymencement of the Constitution to make laws with respect to some of the matters as if they were enumerated in the Concurrent List.
v. Kothari Sugar Chemicals Ltd. Ors.,
Though the period provided in Section 4 was one year from the expiration of the declaration of the emergency by the Governor General, this period was extended from time to time and would have ended on 31st March 1948 On 18th July 1947, the Indian Independence Act came to be passed leading to the Indian Central Government and Legislature Act, 1946 which by way of adaptation provided that the powers of the Dominion Legislature shall be exercised by the Constituent Assembly.
