9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to the fixation of price of levy sugar for the years 1974-75 to 1979-80 under Section 3(3-C) of Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Interpretation of the judgment regarding the inclusion of additional cane price payable by sugar producers under clause 5A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 in the re-fixation of levy sugar price. Compliance with the Supreme Court's directions by the Union of India in issuing amended notifications. Contentions regarding the interconnection of Section 3(3-C) and clause 5A, and the relevance of clause 5A in determining the levy sugar price. Analysis: The Supreme Court disposed of various petitions challenging the fixation of levy sugar prices for 1974-75 to 1979-80, finding the impugned orders invalid due to non-compliance with relevant legal provisions. Instead of quashing the notifications, the Court directed the Union of India to amend them by considering the liability of sugar producers under clause 5A of the 1966 Order and factors in Section 3(3-C) of the Act, with a deadline of December 31, 1993 for compliance. The Union of India filed review petitions and sought clarifications on interpreting the judgment, particularly regarding the inclusion of additional cane price in re-fixing levy sugar prices. The Court dismissed the review petitions but extended the implementation deadline to November 30, 1994. Despite this, the Government failed to issue the required notifications promptly, leading to a delay until February 22, 1995. The applicants, including the India Sugar Mills Association, challenged the new notifications issued by the Government, alleging non-compliance with the Court's directive to include additional cane price in re-fixing levy sugar prices. The respondents argued that clause 5A and Section 3(3-C) were independent, but the Court held that the liability under clause 5A must be considered in determining levy sugar prices. The Court emphasized that the Government must adhere to its directions, including considering the producer's liability under clause 5A while re-fixing levy sugar prices. The respondents' contentions were rejected, and the Court ordered the Government to issue additional notifications in line with the Court's directives from the previous cases.
|
