TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 555X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercising the power under Clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 (for short, the 'Order') determined the minimum price for sugarcane at ₹ 13.92 per quintal. The State Government announced on March 31, 1983 the price of Sugarcane at ₹ 20.50 per quintal. The cane growers supplied the sugarcane to the appellant, but the appellant admittedly had paid the minimum price! determined under the Order but the difference between the price fixed! under the Order and the price announced by the State Government was not paid. As a consequence, the Collector gave a certificate of dues for realisation under the Revenue Recovery Act. Calling those proceedings in question, the writ petition came to be filed. The contention raised in the High Court as well as in this Court is that the Central Government having determined the price of the sugarcane at ₹ 13.92 per quintal, the State Government was devoid of power to fix the price at ₹ 20.50 per quintal and, therefore, the Collector has no power to issue the certificate of arrears; since what is due is the price fixed under the Order which has already been paid and therefore, there is nothing due in accordance w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to ensure that the cane growers should not be compelled to sell their sugarcane at a price minimum to the price prescribed by the Central Government under Clause 3 of the Order. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jaora Sugar Mills Ltd. and Ors. Etc. AIR1997SC600 by a Bench of two Judges, to which two of us (K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.) were members, considered the similar question and held thus: Rule 3(3) determines where a producer of sugar purchases any sugarcane from a grower of sugarcane or from a sugarcane grower's co-operative society, the producer shall, unless there is an agreement in writing to the contrary between the parties, pay within fourteen days form the date of delivery of the sugarcane to the seller or tender to him the price of the cane sold at the rate agreed to between the producer and the sugarcane growers' of sugarcane growers' co-operative society or that fixed under Sub-clause (1), as the case may be, either at the gate of the factory or at the cane collection center or transfer or deposit the necessary amount in the Bank Account of the seller or the co-operative society, as the case may be. Clause (3A) to Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Order. Thus, we hold that there was no statutory prohibition at the relevant time to agree to pay higher price than was fixed under the order. 6. There is, thus, no prohibition on payment of higher price, it is seen and it is not disputed that there was an agreement by the Sugar Factory Owners Association with growers of sugarcane entered in January 1983 wherein the price to the sugarcane at ₹ 20.50 per quintal was agreed to be paid. It is stated in the judgment of the High Court that this was fixed after the agreement between the Millers Association and the farmers at a meeting convened by the State Government and the agreement was notified by the State Government. The High Court has also stated that the appellant had played prominent part in fixation of the price and it acted upon it till March 31, 1983. What was contended in the High Court was that though the agreement was there, since the Company is an independent entity in the eye of law, it is not bound by such an agreement and, therefore, the appellant is entitled to resile from the agreement with the farmers at that meeting convened by the State Government. In Jaora's case this Court had held t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pply of sugarcane to the factory. All the farmers who are cultivating the sugarcane within that zone are bound by the State action to supply sugarcane to the factories within that reserved area. Consequently, the factory also is bound by the actions of the State Government. Obviously, pursuant to the obligation had by the State under the Supply Act, the meeting was convened by the State Government whereas the factory owners' Association and farmers participated and agreed to fix the price at ₹ 20.50 per quintal of sugarcane. As a consequence, both the cane growers as well as the owners of the factory are bound by the decision. This having been agreed upon, the price fixed by the State Government in excess of the minimum price fixed by the Central Government under Clause 3 of the Order would be the price fixed for supply of sugarcane and the Government would be entitled to enforce the liability. As a consequence, the Collector was empowered and duty bound to issue a certificate of the dues as arrears of land revenue for recovery under the Revenue Recovery Act. The certificate obviously relates to the difference between the minimum price fixed by the Central Government, i.e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
