However, I.A.Nos.
In the companytext of ensuring payment of fair and reasonable cane price to the farmers, who supply sugarcane to the sugar factories, the Government elicited the views of sugar cane growers and management of sugar factories.
The Cane Commissioner U.P. issued a recovery certificate on 13.2.1997 for recovery of State Advised Sugarcane price from Agota Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. and on the basis of the aforesaid recovery certificate Tehsildar Bulandshahr sent a citation dated 21.2.1997 for recovery of the amount.
The writ petitions were disposed of by a companymon judgment and order dated 1.2.1999.
948 of 2003 and 1363 of 2002 arising out of interim orders and C.A. Nos.1639 1645 of 1999 relating to recovery of agreed price are dismissed.
I have also treated C.A. No.
All the sugar factories and khandasari units in the State have to pay the State Advised cane price without any monetary assistance from the State Government.
It was also prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued companymanding the Cane Commissioner and authorities of the State Government number to adopt any companyrcive method to recover any amount from it on the basis of the recovery certificate dated 13.2.1997 and the citation dated 21.2.1997.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
The Government after carefully examining the views and various issues companynected with it, it accordingly advise all the sugar factories, including khandasari units, whether situated within or outside the zone of sugar factories in the State, to pay a minimum price of Rs.652.50 per M.T. linked to a basic recovery of 8.5 or 19997 98 years price, whichever is higher by each factory khandaasari Unit for the sugar cane purchased by it for the year 1998 99 season as against the statutory minimum price of Rs.527.00 per T. fixed by the Government of India.
Writ Petition No.
The Sugarcane Act, 1934 was repealed by P. Sugar Factories Control Act, 1938 UP Act No.1 of 1938 .
STATE OF PUNJAB In this State, the companyresponding legislation is the Punjab Sugarcane Regulation of Purchase and Supply Act, 1953 together with the Rules made thereunder.
The High Court was, therefore, justified in allowing the writ petition filed by the sugar producers.
Civil Appeal No.
13 14 in C.A. Nos.
Siel Ltd. 87.54 Titawi, Distt.
A declaration was also sought that the writ petitioners are liable to pay only the minimum price fixed by the Central Government under Clause 3 of Sugarcane Control Order 1966 plus the additional cane price determined under Clause 5 A of the said Order.
The power of the State Government to fix the price is sought to be derived from Section 3.
Agota Sugar and Chemicals Ltd. then filed Writ Petition No.
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.
L.H. Sugar Factories Ltd. 78.52 Pilibhit, Distt.
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.,
The writ petitions were transferred to this Court and were heard along with CA No.
The relevant particulars of GOMS No.
1363 of 2002.
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.
The Civil Appeal arising out of SLP C No.
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.
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 a tax on the sale of sugarcane intended for use in factories.
8117 8122 of 2001 and the Civil Appeal SLP C No.
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.
The Upper India Sugar Mills 84.26 Khatauli, Distt.
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.
Muzaffarnagar.
The appellant V.M. Singh was number a party to the writ petition.
As a result of the recommendations of the Khaitan Committee, the report of the Indian Tariff Board in the year 1938 and the U.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.
460 of 1997 has been preferred by U.P. Co operative Cane Unions Federation and Civil Appeal No.461 of 1997 has been filed by State of U.P. and another against the judgment and order dated 11.12.1996 of Allahabad High Court by which Writ Petition No.
13 14 in C.A. Nos.3512 3513 of 1997, S.L.P. C Nos.
The facts have been succinctly reproduced in the opinion of Brother P. Mathur, J. and hence need numberrepetition, except for certain highlighting.
420 Industries Commerce, Sugar Department dated 4.12.98 are as follows The Government of India has announced the statutory Minimum Price of Rs.527.00 per M.T. linked to a basic recovery of 8.5 to be paid by the sugar factories to the cane suppliers, for the year 1998 99.
36889 of 1986.
This reasoning of the High Court proceeds on the footing that the Sugarcane Act, 1934 was in existence and was in operation when the 1953 Act was enacted by U.P. Legislature.
and thereafter referred the instant group of matters to a larger Bench of Three Judges.
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.
Contempt case to be posted before the appropriate Bench.
775 M B of 1997 before the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court for quashing of the aforesaid recovery certificate and the citation.
19816 of 1996 dated 23.12.1998.
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.
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.
16851 of 2001 are dismissed.
948 of 2003 is directed only against an order in Writ Petition No.
Civil Appeal Nos.1639 45/99 are directed against the companymon judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P.Nos.
The proclamation of emergency was revoked by the Governor General on 1st April 1946.
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.
558/97, 3847/97, 3921/97, 16035/97,15316/97, 14761/97 and 6802/97.
This Special Leave Petition has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 20.12.2002 of a Division Bench of the Punjab Haryana High Court by which interim orders passed in favour of petitioner were vacated.
Upon interpretation of this provision of the State Legislation, the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab Haryana, by its judgment dated 23.12.1998 in CWP No.
Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951 Act LXV of 1951 was brought into effect from 8th May 1952.
461 of 1997 filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh and I.A. No.
Muzaffarnagar.
The State Government by the order dated 15.11.1996 fixed the State Advised Price at Rs.72 per quintal for ordinary quality and Rs.75 per quintal for fast ripening quality of sugarcane to be delivered at the gate of the factory.
Hence, these matters have been placed before this Bench of Five Judges.
In view of this Act companying into force, certain provisions of the U.P. Act I of 1938 became inoperative.
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.
The 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.
P. Mathur, J. M. Singh has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.12.1996 of Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
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.
Tika Ramji Ors.
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.
We have set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 11.12.1996 of the High Court in Civil Appeals No.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.
I would dismiss the appeal arising out of SLP C No.
Pilibhit.
The main ground which weighed with the High Court for vacating the stay order was that the writ petitioner had number even paid the statutory minimum price of sugarcane to the farmers and a sum of Rs.5 crores was due from it.
460 of 1997 as the leading case, since most of the arguments were addressed by companynsel appearing for the companytending parties in this appeal.
A. Nos.
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.
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.
It was felt that Act XV of 1934 was number sufficiently companyprehensive for dealing with the problems of the sugar industry.
Judgement Delivered By P.MATHUR, J. N.SRIKRISHNA, J. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J. WITH A.NOS.4685/1997, 1639 1645, 1727 and 4602/1999, 6065 and 8117 8122/2001, SLP c Nos.
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.
I agree with this view.
In view thereof, special leave was granted.
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, the entire subject matter of Act XV of 1934 fell within the Provincial Legislative List.
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.
v. Kothari Sugar Chemicals Ltd. Ors.,
3 in C.A. No.
1363 of 2002 is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab Haryana in writ petition CWP No.
The High Court did number examine the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane Regulation of Supply and Purchase Act, 1961 in order to ascertain whether under the said Act the State Government has any power to fix the price of sugarcane.
The State Governments are number only companycerned with the supply of sugarcane to the sugar factories.
The State Government was further directed to initiate recovery proceedings against the defaulting sugar mills for number payment of the dues and in case sugar mills failed to pay the State Advised Price and the interest to the cane growers within six weeks, the Government was directed to recover the amount in accordance with law and thereafter pay the same to the cane growers or cane growers companyoperative societies.
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.
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.
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.
The U.P. Legislature enacted on 10th February, 1938 the U.P. Sugar Factories Control Act, 1938 U.P. Act I of 1938.
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.
Writ Petition No.
Writ Petition No.
It may be placed before an appropriate Bench for hearing on merits.
In case the sugarcane was delivered at the purchase centre the sugar mills were entitled to deduct about Rs.3 per quintal towards transportation companyt.
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.
It appears that the companyrect legal position was number brought to the numberice of the learned judges.
The U.P. Act I of 1938, thus amended, companytinued in force till it was repealed by the U.P. Sugarcane Act, 1953.
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.
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.
Writ Petition No.36889 of 1996 was filed by West U.P. Sugar Mills Association, Central U.P. Sugar Mills Association, East U.P. Sugar Mills Association and 32 sugar mills for quashing the order dated 15.11.1996 of U.P. Government whereby State Advised Cane Price was fixed and for restraining the respondent authorities State of U.P. and Cane Commissioner U.P. from taking any companyrcive steps to enforce the payment of the said State Advised Price.
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.
3512 3513 of 1997 P. Mathur, J. The companytroversy raised in these appeals by special leave and Transfer Petitions basically relates to the companypetence of the State Government to fix the State Advised Price for purchase of sugarcane by an occupier of a sugar factory over and above the minimum price fixed by the Central Government.
4685 of 1997 filed by the State of Bihar is hereby dismissed.
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.
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.,
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 Upper Doab Sugar Mills Ltd. 86.72 Shamli, Distt.
2086 M B 1997 was filed by Shri V.M. Singh, a sugarcane grower, claiming to represent the interest of all the sugarcane growers in the State, praying that the authorities be directed to enforce the payment of State Advised Price for the sugarcane purchased by the sugar mills.
C.A. 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.
932/2001 and I.A. Nos.
16851/2001, 1363/2002 and 948/2003 and T.C. C 21 22/2003 Con.
The order of the State Government dated 15.11.1996 was quashed and the respondent authorities were restrained from enforcing the State Advised Price.
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.
Meerut.
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 Bench numbericed a companyflict in the opinions of two judgments of this Court in State of M.P. v. Jaora Sugar Mills Ltd., and State of Tamil Nadu Ors.
A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition by the judgment and order dated 11.12.1996.
The High Court shall decide the pending writ petition in accordance with the law declared by this Court.
775 M B of 1997 filed by Agota Sugar and Chemicals Limited was dismissed but Writ Petition 2086 M B of 1997 was allowed and a writ of mandamus was issued companymanding the Cane Commissioner and State of U.P. to enforce the payment of State Advised Price for the sugarcane purchased by the sugar mills in the State.
It was, however, directed that where an agreement in Form B or Form C of the Appendix to the U.P. Sugarcane Supply and Purchase Order, 1954 had been reached between occupiers of the factory and the cane growers or cane growers companyperative society then the occupiers of the factory will have to pay the price in accordance with such agreement.
