TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bad as the price was not fixed in accordance with the relevant provisions of law. However, it did not quash the notification as they would have led to nebulous situation during the interregnum till re-fixation of price. Instead of quashing the said notifications it directed the Union of India to amend the notifications taking into account the liability of producers of sugar under clause 5A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the '1966 Order'), having regard to the factors mentioned in Section 3(3-C) of the Act. The Government was also directed to issue the amended notifications by December 31, 1993. The Union of India was not satisfied with the judgment and, therefore, filed Review Petition Nos. 211 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 22.2.1995 -1976- 77. 4. No.GSR 79 (E)/Ess.Com./Sugar dt. 22.2.1995 -1977- 78. 5. No.GSR 80 (E)/Ess.Com./Sugar dt. 22.2.1995 -1978- 79. 6. No.GSR 81 (E)/Ess.Com./Sugar dt. 22.2.1995 -1979- 80. It is the grievance of the applicants that the said notifications have been issued in disregard and contravention of the judgment of this Court inasmuch as the Government, while re-fixing the levy sugar price for the said six years, has failed to include in such re-fixation the element of additional cane price payable by the producers under clause 5A of the 1966 Order. They, therefore, want this Court to give appropriate directions to the Union of India to forthwith comply fully and effectively with the judgment by issuing supp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar to the sugarcane grower and, therefor, what is statutorily payable to the grower has necessarily to be included as a element of Factor 'A' of Section 3(3-C). Moreover, the minimum price payable under Section 3(3-C) and the additional minimum price payable under clause 5A are integral components of manufacturing cos under Factor 'B'. The second ground of challenge was that mopping up of the entire excess realisation by sale of free sugar was also incorrect in view of clause 5A as that would result in total denial of any return on the capital employed in the business of manufacturing sugar, resulting in not even recovering the actual cost of production. Though prior to October 1, 1974, the date on which clause 5A was added, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was open to the government to mop up the entire extra realisation, even though clause 5A entitles the producer to retain 50 % of the extra realisation as his share to meet with his other financial obligations and liabilities. This Court rejected the contention that Section 3(3-C) and clause 5A are totally independent and held that if the determination of minimum price of sugar and fixation of the price of levy sugar under quantity of sugar to be supplied by the producer are inter-connected, then they must be read as a whole and not separately as though each is distinct . With respect to mopping up of extra realisation on sale of free sugar for the purpose of determining price of levy sugar this Court held that according to the new pri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A what is now submitted on behalf of the respondents is as under:- ......It is submitted that this part of the directions was complied with by not mopping up the extra realisations on account of sales of free-sale sugar. While determining the originally notified prices, the extra realisations were mopped up for purpose of determination of the prices. This had resulted in a reduction in the prices. This had resulted in a reduction in the prices to a level lower than the price to which the sugar producers would have been entitled to in terms of the provisions of the aforesaid Section 3(3-C). The respondents have also tried to support their action by contending that clause 5A is inter-connected with clause 3 of the 1966 Order and Sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he respondents. In unambiguous terms this Court has directed the Government of India to take into account the liability of the manufacturer under clause 5A of the 1966 Order as regards cane price and re-fix the price of levy sugar. Obviously, the price of levy sugar has to be fixed having regard to the Factors mentioned in Section 3(3-C) of the Act and, therefore, this Court while giving the aforesaid direction also directed them to re-fix the price of levy sugar having regard to those Factors also. The doubt or confusion, if any, appears to us to be the Ernest of unwillingness of the Government to give up its views and accept and implement the decision of this Court. The observation, in Paragraph 104 of judgment that the amount which th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
