Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Govt. Of A.P. And Anr. vs K.C.P. Sugar & Industries Corporation ... on 8 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: AIR2001AP486, 2001(3)ALT735, AIR 2001 ANDHRA PRADESH 486, (2001) 3 ANDH LT 735
Author: B. Subhashan Reddy
Bench: B. Subhashan Reddy
JUDGMENT B. Subhashan Reddy, J.
1. This writ appeal has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 20-4-1999 rendered by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 2876 of 1999..
2. The above writ petition was filed questioning G.O.Ms.No. 420, Industries and Commerce (Sugar) Department dated 4-12-1998. By the said Governmental order, the State of Andhra Pradesh had directed the sugar and Khandasari factories to pay a minimum price of Rs. 652.50 ps. per metric tonne of sugar cane, as against the statutory minimum price of Rs. 527/- per metric tonne fixed by the Government of India.
3. The contention before the learned single Judge was that the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 was issued in exercise of the power under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Clause 3 of the said order enables the Central Government to fix the statutory minimum price payable by the owners of the vacuum pan process sugar factories or their agents for sugar can delivered at the gate of the factory or any purchasing centre.
4. The case of the State Government before the learned single Judge was that the cane growers were not getting remunerative prices and as such, they have fixed the higher price at Rs. 652.50 ps. per metric tonne as against the price of Rs. 527/- per metric tonne fixed by the Government of India and that there is no force applied and that in fact the said price was arrived at only after deliberations with the sugarcane factory owners association and that the writ petition was not maintainable.
5. The writ petition was filed by the K.C.P. Sugar and Industries Corporation. On hearing either side and Interpreting Clause 3 of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order. 1966. the learned single Judge held that it is only the Central Goverment that is competent to fix the statutory minimum price of sugar cane payable by the sugar factories to the growers and that the State Government is not competent to enhance or decrease the said price. It was also held by the learned single Judge that the State Government's concern that the sugar cane growers were not getting remunerative price does not enable the State Government to usurp the jurisdiction by fixing price of the sugar cane over and above the minimum statutory price fixed by the Government of India, in the result, the above Governmental order contained in G.O. Ms. No. 420, dated 4-12-1998 was quashed. Hence, this writ appeal.
6. Sri T, Anantha Babu, the learned Advocate-General appearing for the State of Andhra Pradesh submits that the State Government has got power to fix the price and that is only directory in nature and not an imposition. He submits that there are no penal consequences attached to the said governmental order and that such payment shall be subject to the final fixation in accordance with the Sugar Cane (Control) Order. 1966. Countering the said arguments, Sri Sudhir Chandra Agarwal, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent writ petitioner and supporting the Judgment of the learned single Judge, submits that fixation of price of the sugar cane is the function of the Central Government and having been Invested with such power by the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, promulgated in exercise of the powers contained in Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, the Central Government fixed the price at Rs. 527/- per metric tonne, and it was not open to the State Government to usurp the Jurisdiction not vested in it and then refix the same at the higher rate of Rs. 652.50 ps. per metric tonne. The learned Senior Counsel submits that even if the price control is not governed by the provisions of Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951, a Central Government enactment, the same falls within the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act and consequently the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 having been Issued in exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 prevails and the Central Government alone is the authority to fix the minimum price and not the State Government. The learned counsel submits that even though the legislative source for enactment of Essential Commodites Act, 1955 is derived from Entry 33 of List III and even though the State Government is empowered to enact a law fixing the minimum price in supersession of the provision of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, but no such enactment has been made by the State Government and in the result the Sugarcane (Control) Order. 1966 continues to be in operation,
7. We are taken through the provisions of A.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the 'A.P. Act.). A survey of the A.P. Act leaves us in no doubt that the provisions of the said Act do not deal with price fixation of sugarcane. The regulatory provisions touch upon the minimum quantity of cane to be crushed by the factory, maintenance of the register of all the cane growers, sale by the members to that factory, declaration of factory zone and regulation, supply and purchase of cane in factory zone and allied provisions. Payment of cane price is ensured under Section 19 of the State Act fixing fourteen days time for the occupier to pay the sugarcane price to the growers. Striking feature is that while the fixation of price is not vested in the State, the State vests in it only the power of ensuring the payment of cane price. A Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in Ch. Tika Ramji v. State of Uttar Pradesh, had an occasion to deal with the virus of the provisions of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act. 1953, vis-a-vis the provisions of the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1951. After elaborate discussion of the Constitutional provisions, particularly, dealing with the Legislative List, it was held by the Supreme that the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the Sugar Cane Control Order are traceable to Entry 33 of List III and as such, both the Parliament and State Legislatures have got legislative power, subject, of course, to limitations stated in Sub-Article (2) of Article 254 of Constitution. Having surveyed the provisions of the U.P. Act mentioned above, it was held that the same was intra vires the Constitution. But. It was held by the Supreme Court that the U.P. Act did not make any provision for fixation of price and quoting Section 17 thereof, it was held that the said provision only ensures payment of the sugar cane price payable by the occupier of the factory on purchase of the same. Similar is the situation in A.P. Act. Section 19 of A.P. Act merely confines Itself to the mode of I payment of the purchase price by the occupier of the factory to the cane-grower on the same analogy of Section 17 of U.P. Act mentioned above. In circumstances, the irresistible conclusion is that fixation of minimum price payable for the purchase of sugarcane still lies within the domain of the Central Government and not the State Government and it has to be done only in accordance with the provisions of the Sugarcane (Control) Order 1966. The decision rendered by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Jaora Sugar Mills Ltd., and State of Tamil Nadu v. Kothari Sugars & Chemicals, have got no bearing on the competent authority for price-fixation. The said judgments only deal with the power to enter into agreement between the grower and purchaser, which only means that the parties can opt out of the provisions of the Sugarcane (Control) Order. 1966 by entering into an agreement for payment of higher price over and above the minimum price fixed. But, no such agreement has been entered into between* the grower and the purchaser in the instant appeal or the writ petitions which have been heard along with this appeal.
8. In view of what is stated supra, we do not see any legal infirmity in the order passed by the learned single Judge and accordingly, we affirm the said order. But, by this we do not mean that the additional price payable over and above the minimum price is not payable under Clause 5-A of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. The additional price as fixed by the Cane Commissioner is bound to be paid by the purchaser like the respondents in the instant case. It is sad to note that the Cane Commissioner did not move in that direction in spite of lapse of two years. It is stated on behalf of the State that necessary information for determination of additional price has not been furnished and as such, there is a delay. If such information is called for by the Cane Commissioner and the purchasers like the respondents and the other writ petitioners have not furnished information, then the Cane Commissioner can fix the additional price on the basis of the information available to him and then the cane purchaser cannot make any grievance with regard to fixation of additional price. In no event, the fixation of additional price can be delayed beyond two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
9. The Writ Appeal is dismissed with the above directions. No costs.