UTTAM SUGAR MILLS LTD Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) J. C. S. Rawat, J. Since there is a common question of law and fact involved in both petitions, therefore, both petitions have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) BY means of Writ Petition No. 204 of 2008 (WB), the petitioners have sought the following reliefs : " (i) issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notification/ order dated 23rd January, 2008, fixing the SAP of Rs. 1321- per quintal for early maturing cane varieties and Rs. 1271- per quintal for gen eral cane varieties, issued by re spondent no. 1, as contained in Annexure No. 1 to me writ peti tion. (ii) issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus declaring section 16 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act 1953 (adopted by Uttarakhand) as unconstitu tional. (iii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus declaring that the State Government would have no au thority to fix a price for sugarcane till adequate and appropriate guidelines are framed and incor porated in the provisions of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Sup ply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (as adopted by Uttarakhand ). (iv) issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to ap point a. Committee consisting of experts in the field, including in dustry representative, to fix the price of sugarcane after consider ing the guidelines, which may be framed by the respondent State. (v) issue a writ, order or direction or an appropriate writ calling for the records of the State Government and quashing its decision fixing State Advised Price for 2007-08. vi) issue a writ order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent State to refix a fair and reasonable price for sugarcane for the crushing sea son 2007-08 after taking into con sideration relevant factors, as enu merated in the writ petition. (vii) issue a writ, order or direction permitting the petitioners to pay cane price for the crushing season 2007-08 equal to the Statutory Minimum Price fixed by the Cen tral Government till such time as guidelines are framed under the Act. (viii) issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Form C aforesaid. (ix) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction declaring the fixation of State Advised Price under the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 as void in view of Article 254 of the Consti tution of India. (x) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to insist upon the execution of any agreement to be executed in Form-C till appro priate guidelines are framed for fixation of State Advised Price and further not to enforce any agree ment executed by the petitioners in Form-C. (xi) issue a writ, order or direction in. the nature of mandamus, includ ing diversion of cane centre be taken against the petitioners on the basis of the arrears arising out of the State Advised Price. (xii) issue an ad-interim mandamus to the above effect. (xiii) issue such other writ, order or di rection which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and (xiv) award the cost of the petition to the petitioners. "

(3.) THE State Government has filed the counter affidavit on behalf of respond ent no. 1 and 2 alleging therein that the sugarcane growers and the petitioners have already acted upon the agreement executed in Form B and C for the year 2006-07 wherein the petitioners have agreed to purchase the sugarcane at the rate fixed by the State Government for the crushing season 2006-2007 as is apparent from perusal of Clause 1 of said agree ments. Copies of these agreements have been filed with C. A.- 1 to 3. THE re spondent no. 2 have also alleged that all the petitioners entered into an agreement to purchase the sugarcane at the rate fixed price by the State Government for the crushing season 2007-08 and the cop ies of these agreements have been filed as C. A.-4 to 7. It was further alleged that the Government fixed S. A. P at the rate of Rs. 132/- per quintal for early maturing cane varieties and Rs. 127/- per quintal for gen eral varieties for the purchase of sugarcane in the year 2006-07 and these rates of SAP were not changed for the crushing season of 2007-08. It was further alleged in the counter affidavit that after execut ing the agreement the occupier of the fac tory cannot turn around from the agree ment executed in Form 'c' by saying that it is a standard format and doted line contract. THE Central Government is em powered to fix the minimum price of sugarcane and it can be higher than the minimum price which may in the nature of agreed purchase price between the oc cupier of the factories and the sugarcane growers and sugarcane cooperative socie ties. THE Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in U. P. Cooperative Cane Unions Federations (supra) has held that the regulatory power is possessed with the State Government under section 16 of U. P Act, 1953 and the regulatory power also include the power to fix the price of sugarcane. If it is held that the State un der the power of regulation cannot fix the price then the statutory provisions con tained in the U. P Act, 1953 and the Or der thereunder i. e. 1954 would be com pletely one sided agreement operating for the benefit of sugarcane factories giv ing them many advantages and cor responding obligation would have to be given to the cane growers and leaving the cane growers in the lurch. At last, the respondents prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.