Punjab-Haryana High Court
Malwa Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs State Of Punjab And Ors. on 9 January, 2008
Equivalent citations: (2008)151PLR291
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
JUDGMENT Ranjit Singh, J.
1. M/s Malwa Sugar Mills Company Limited, Dhuri, District Sangrur, has filed this writ petition, impugning the orders dated 11.4.1983 (Annexure P-11), dated 2.5.1983 (Annexure P-12), dated 9.5.1983 (Annexure P-13), dated 18.5.1983 (Annexure P-15) and dated 15.6.1983 (Annexure P-17).
2. The petitioner-Company is running a sugar mill and for the purpose of producing sugar resorted to purchase sugar cane of different varieties from reserved and assigned areas. It is averred that petitioner-Company had entered into an agreement with respondent No. 3 for purchasing of sugarcane of approved varieties @ Rs. 20/- per quintal and sugarcane variety of COJ 64 at the rate of Rs. 23/- per quintal. The averment reveals that the Company can not purchase sugarcane from outside the reserved and assigned areas and that the petitioner-Company had not entered into any agreement for purchase of rejected/banned varieties of sugarcane. The agreement was allegedly entered between the petitioner-company and the sugarcane growers or sugarcane growers society under the provisions of Control Order. Copy of the agreement is placed on record as Annexure P-2.
3. It is seen that respondent No. 1, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 12 of the Punjab Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase and Supply) Act, 1953, declared CO 1158 variety of sugarcane as unsuitable besides imposing ban on its cultivation in reserved and assigned areas of the petitioner-Company. Copy of this notification is at Annexure P-3. Sugarcane year commences with effect from October 1 and ends on September 30 of the succeeding year. In the year 1982, the crushing season started with effect from 31.12.1982 and continued upto 29.5.1983. Petitioner would point out that wide publicity was given by the petitioner-Company in regard to the banned variety of the sugarcane for the farmers so that the said banned variety is not grown by them. Despite, some of the growers still cultivated variety CO 1158 of the sugarcane in the reserved/assigned areas of the petitioner-Company. During the course of purchase, the banned variety of sugarcane was also brought to the petitioner-Company and ultimately about 46726 quintals of said sugarcane variety was purchased from 31.12.1982 to 12.3.1983.
4. It is alleged that the petitioner-Company had lodged a protest with the Cane Commissioner (respondent No. 2) in this regard through its letter dated 5.1.1983. According to the petitioner-Company, this banned variety of sugarcane was purchased by it against its wishes and after protest. Another reason for which the Company stated to have purchased this banned variety of sugarcane was to avoid any ugly law and order situation as non-purchasing would have led to agitation by farmers. Complaint in this regard was made to respondent No. 2 through a letter dated 7.1.1983. The petitioner-Company is stated to have suffered a huge loss on account of this purchase of rejected variety of sugarcane as this variety lead to very less recovery of sugar. Petitioner-Company complaints that still no action was taken by respondent No. 2 for stopping the supply of rejected variety of sugarcane. Some other protest letters were also written by the petitioner-Company alleging that it is being compelled to accept the banned variety being forced by the circumstances etc.
5. The record reveals that this banned variety of sugarcane was supplied by the cane growers at the minimum statutory price of Rs. 14.07 per quintal. The petitioner-Company claims to have suffered great financial loss on account of supply of this banned variety of sugarcane even by offering this price. The Cane Commissioner, however, directed the petitioner-Company to make payment for this variety also at the rate of Rs. 20/- per quintal. This writ petition was accordingly filed impugning the action of the respondents, especially Cane Commissioner, whereby he had issued direction for payment of the minimum statutory price fixed for the sugarcane in respect of variety which is even banned.
6. Learned Senior counsel, Mr. O.P. Goel, would draw my attention to orders, An-nexures P-11, P-12, P-13, P-15 and P-17. A perusal of these orders would show that the Cane Commissioner, Punjab, directed the petitioner-Company to pay a price of Rs. 20/- per quintal for all varieties accepted by the petitioner-Company during the crushing season 1982-83. Annexure P-12 is a communication through which the petitioner-Company was informed that it was never asked to accept the cane variety of CO 1158 and the same was statedly accepted by the Company at its own level. Accordingly directions were issued for payment of the price at the rate of Rs. 20/- per quintal. Direction to pay Rs. 20/- per quintal for this variety of sugarcane was reiterated through Annexure P-13, which was again repeated through Annexures P-15 and P-17. The grievance of the petitioner-Company is that the Cane Commissioner would not have any jurisdiction to fix either the minimum statutory price of any variety of sugarcane, which is not approved or is rejected/banned. It is further urged that the power and jurisdiction to fix the minimum support price for sugarcane is with the Central Government and not with the Cane Commissioner.
7. It is conceded that statutory minimum price fixed at the rate of Rs. 14.07 per quintal had already been paid by the petitioner-Company but the submission is that the Company is not liable to pay the price at the rate of Rs. 20/- per quintal as the sugarcane statedly purchased was of a variety which was banned and is not otherwise governed by the agreement between the petitioner and respondent No. 3-Cane Growers Society. The justification in this regard has also been given in the petition that this variety of sugarcane results in less yield of sugar and hence, could not be equated with the other varieties of the sugarcane, for which the minimum support price had been fixed.
8. On notice having been issued, reply is filed on behalf of the State. Inter-alia, it is urged that the matter in dispute is required to be referred to the arbitration in view of Clause 10 of the agreement, which has also named the Arbitrator in this regard and it is the Cane Commissioner. It is also stated that the petitioner-Company was directed to stop purchase of banned variety of sugarcane but it continued to purchase the same despite direction and as such, now can not escape the liability that may arise on account of purchase of the said variety of sugarcane.
9. The issue pertains to the years 1982-83. The quantity involved, concededly is 46726 quintals. The growers have received the payment at the rate of Rs. 1.4.07 per quintal and only difference of a sum of Rs. 5.93P is due to them as per the direction of the Cane Commissioner, which is under challenge. During the course of arguments, it is revealed that the total sum of liability on this count would work out to be approximately Rs. 3 lacs. Otherwise it is noticed that there is a serious dispute in the facts between the parties. The case set-up by the petitioner is that these banned varieties were not voluntarily purchased by the petitioner-Company but it was forced to do so. This stand of the petitioner-Company is disputed by the State and it is emphasized that the petitioner-Company had voluntarily purchased this variety of sugarcane and as such, now can not be allowed to escape the liability to pay the farmers at the rate fixed by the Cane Commissioner. Mr. Goel, however, would have something in his submission when he says that there is no agreement between the petitioner-Company and the Growers Society in regard to banned variety of sugarcane and as such, objection by the State that the same is required to be decided by an Arbitrator in view of the agreement may not govern the method of resolving the dispute. With passage of time this writ petition virtually has lost its sting. The writ petition stands admitted since the year 1983. Major portion of the payment has already been made to the farmers. It can be noticed that the farmers are not that educated and well-versed and, thus, can not be attributed the knowledge that they were not to grow this variety or it was banned variety. If it was so well published, as claimed by the company, the farmers would have either not grown this variety or would not have brought it to the petitioner-Company for purchase. Even the stand of the Company petitioner is not that this publicity was one year prior to this relevant year. Sugarcane is not an yearly crop but it is grown for at least two years and to enforce ban it was required to be enforced not for this year but should have started a year prior to the instant year. The farmers, who had grown this variety, which was ultimately purchased by the petitioner-Company in any case can not be put to further loss. At this belated stage and amount involved being hardly substantial, no interference in the impugned order is called for in equity or otherwise.
10. I would, as such, dismiss this writ petition leaving the parties to bear their own costs. To further balance the equity between the parties, it is appropriate to direct that the petitioner-Company would be liable to pay balance payment only and this shall not carry any interest.