ETIKOPPAKA CO OPERATIVE AGRL INDUSTRIAL SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. SECRETARY AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE NARSIPATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions, the vires of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short, 'Markets Act'), is questioned.

(2.) Petitioners in all these writ petitions are the sugar factories located atvarious places in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Sugarcane is the raw material for these factories. The case of the petitioners is that for the purpose of regulating the supply and purchase of sugarcane required for use in sugar factories and khandasari units and for matters connected therewith, the State Legislature has enacted A.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961 (for short, 'Sugar Regulation Act'). The Sugar Regulation Act takes care of the general and overall development of the sugarcane growers. In furtherance of the object of the Sugar Regulation Act, Section 3 provides for setting up of a Committee called, the A.P. Sugarcane Advisory Committee. Section 4 enumerates the functions of the Committee. They are mainly to advise the Government on the regulation of supply and purchase of cane for factories and khandasari units; varieties of cane which are suitable or unsuitable for use in factories and khandasari units; maintenance of good relations between the occupiers of factories and cane growers etc. Under Section 5, the Cane Commissioner, who is appointed in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 9, shall constitute a Cane Development Council for each factory zone. Its functions as enumerated in Section 6 are : to consider and approve the programme of development for the factory zone with the funds at the disposal of the Council; to devise ways and means for the execution of development plans such as cane varieties, rotation, cane-seed, sowing programme, fertilizers and manures; to recommend to the local authorities the undertaking of the construction or improvement of roads in the factory zone; to take steps for the prevention and control of cane diseases and pests; to impart technical training to cultivators in matters relating to the production of cane; to administer funds at its disposal for the execution of the development schemes; to lay down general principles in regard to the issue of orders regulating the cutting of cane and to decide disputes relating thereto on receipt of complaints from the cane growers and to perform other functions for the general improvement of the factory zone. Section 8 enables the Council to maintain Funds so as to meet the charges in connection with the performance of its functions. Apart from the Government, factories, cane growers and cane growers Co-operative Societies are the main contributors to the said Fund. Under Section 15, the Cane Commissioner shall declare villages around the factory as factory zone for the purpose of cane supply to the factory. Section 16 regulates the supply and purchase of cane in factory zone. Under sub-section (1), where an area has been declared as the factory zone for a factory, the occupier of such a factory shall purchase such quantity of cane grown in that area and offered for sale to the factory as may be determined by the Cane Commissioner. Sub-section (2) specifically prohibits selling of cane that is grown in one factory zone to the factory or other persons situated in any other factory zones. Under Section 19, the occupier of the factory is bound to pay the price of the cane supplied to him within 14 days from the date of supply. Fixation of price for the supply of sugarcane will be done under the provisions of Sugar Cane Act, 1934, which was enacted with the object to secure fair price to cane growers. There is one more mechanism under which the price is regulated, viz., Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966, which was issued in exercise of the powers vested under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, by the Central Government. Under Clause 3 of this Order, the Central Government, will fix minimum price of the sugar cane, to be paid by the factories for the supply of the cane to them. This minimum price will be fixed at the beginning of each crushing season. It will be paid immediately after delivery of the cane at the factory. After the crushing season is over, the Central Government again fixes final price on the basis of a formula, which is evolved by taking into account various factors. Since the final price could be determined only at the end of the crushing season, the State Government meanwhile announces the price, known as 'State Advisory Price'. This price holds good for the period between the declaration of minimum price and fixation of final price. Even the State Advisory Price fixed by State Government is also an amalgam of various factors. Thus, there is a fool-proof formula for the fixation of price, which is with a view to see that no sugarcane grower should suffer undue loss. Coming back to the Sugar Regulation Act, Section 21 empowers the Government to levy tax on the purchase of cane. This tax is essentially used for carrying out the functions stated earlier.

(3.) Further, it is the case of the petitioners that there is a separate mechanismwhich will take care of the growth of the sugarcane in the fields. As the recovery of sugar from sugarcane depends upon the time taken for transporting the cane to the factory, qualified persons deputed by the sugar factories periodically monitor the growth of sugarcane in the fields. They use to take samples of the juice contents periodically for the purpose of verifying the percentage of juice in the cane. When the juice contents reach the required stage, harvest permits will be issued by factories for cutting the sugarcane. Thus, in view of the above mechanisms, there is no necessity for any outside mechanism to meddle with either the growth of sugarcane or production of sugar and that, in fact, all these services cannot be provided by the local markets established under the Markets Act. Since the sale and purchase of sugarcane in the State is fully regulated under special enactment called, the Sugar Regulation Act, there is no necessity for the Government to again regulate the said produce under the Markets Act and levy fee under that Act. The contention of the petitioners is that there must be some 'quid pro quo' i.e., correlation between the services rendered by the Government and the fee which is sought to be collected from them under the Markets Act. Since, it is contended that, the sugarcane growers are not deriving any benefit whatsoever under the Markets Act, the Market Committees are not entitled to levy fee upon them. Hence, the writ petitions.