9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Authority of State Government to fix sugarcane price higher than the Central Government's minimum price. 2. Validity of the Collector's certificate for recovery of dues. 3. Binding nature of agreements between sugar factories and cane growers. 4. Obligation of sugar factories within reserved areas to comply with State Government decisions. 5. Recovery of dues through Revenue Recovery Act. 6. Impact of factory takeover and divestment on liability for cane price. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Authority of State Government to fix sugarcane price higher than the Central Government's minimum price: The appellant contended that the State Government lacked the authority to fix the sugarcane price at Rs. 20.50 per quintal, arguing that only the Central Government could set the price under Clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. However, the judgment clarified that while the Central Government fixes the minimum price, there is no prohibition on paying a higher price agreed upon between the parties. The court referenced the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Jaora Sugar Mills Ltd. case, which established that agreements to pay higher prices than the minimum fixed by the Central Government are permissible. 2. Validity of the Collector's certificate for recovery of dues: The appellant argued that since they had paid the minimum price fixed by the Central Government, the Collector's certificate for the additional amount was invalid. The court held that the certificate was valid, as the price fixed by the State Government (Rs. 20.50 per quintal) was enforceable due to the agreement between the sugar factory owners and the cane growers. The Collector was empowered to issue the certificate for the recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue under the Revenue Recovery Act. 3. Binding nature of agreements between sugar factories and cane growers: The court found that the agreement between the Sugar Factory Owners Association and the cane growers, facilitated by the State Government, was binding. The appellant's factory was part of this agreement and had acted upon it until March 31, 1983. The court referenced the Jaora case, emphasizing that such agreements, even if facilitated by the State Government, are binding on the parties involved. 4. Obligation of sugar factories within reserved areas to comply with State Government decisions: Under Section 31 of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981, the State Government has the power to fix reserved areas for sugarcane supply. The court held that both the cane growers and the sugar factories within these reserved areas are bound by the State Government's decisions. Consequently, the appellant's factory was obligated to comply with the agreed price of Rs. 20.50 per quintal. 5. Recovery of dues through Revenue Recovery Act: The court supported the use of the Revenue Recovery Act for recovering the dues. It held that the State Government's action to enforce the higher price through recovery proceedings was appropriate and there was no need for the cane growers to file separate suits. The recovery proceedings were deemed the correct course of action. 6. Impact of factory takeover and divestment on liability for cane price: The appellant raised the issue of factory takeover and divestment, arguing that this affected their liability. The court found this argument irrelevant to the case at hand, stating that the appellant alone was liable to pay the cane price for the relevant period. The court noted that the appellant had already deposited the amount due as directed by the interim order, and any further demands should be pursued in accordance with the law. Conclusion: The appeals were dismissed, affirming the validity of the State Government's price fixation, the binding nature of the agreement between the sugar factories and cane growers, and the appropriateness of recovery proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act. The court emphasized that the appellant was liable to pay the agreed higher price for the sugarcane supplied.
|
