9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Scope and ambit of Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 2. Justifiability and correctness of the zonal system for price fixation. 3. Proper principles and methods for price fixation. 4. Consideration of depreciation and rehabilitation allowance in price fixation. 5. Proper allowance of escalations in various items affecting price determination. 6. Inclusion of additional bonus and gratuity in price determination. Detailed Analysis: 1. Scope and Ambit of Section 3(3C) of the Act: The Court considered whether Section 3(3C) deals exclusively with levy sugar and the determination of reasonable return. The sugar producers argued that profits from free sale sugar should not be considered in determining reasonable return on capital. The Court rejected this argument, holding that fair price must be determined for the entire produce to ensure a reasonable return on the capital employed in the sugar manufacturing business. 2. Justifiability and Correctness of the Zonal System: (a) Zonal Price Fixation: The Court examined whether price fixation according to zones, rather than unit-wise, is permissible under Section 3(3C). It concluded that the Act allows for different prices for different areas, supporting the zonal system for price fixation. (b) State-wise Constitution of Zones: The Court addressed the constitution of zones on a state-wise basis. It found that climatic and agro-economic conditions were considered in zoning and that state-wise zoning was practical due to varying taxes, duties, and wages across states. (c) Discrimination and Article 14: The Court reviewed allegations of discrimination due to the zonal system. It concluded that price fixation based on zones does not lead to discrimination under Article 14, as the cost schedules and relevant factors differ across zones. 3. Principles and Methods for Price Fixation: The Court discussed the principles for price fixation, emphasizing that "cost-plus" is not always appropriate. It noted that efficient units should not be penalized for the inefficiencies of others, and that the Tariff Commission's methods, including weighted averages, were valid and recognized for price determination. 4. Depreciation and Rehabilitation Allowance: The Court reviewed the Tariff Commission's approach to depreciation and rehabilitation. It upheld the use of written down value for depreciation and recognized the need for rehabilitation but noted that the government had deferred a decision on the Commission's recommendation for a graded slab system of excise duty. 5. Allowance of Escalations: The Court considered the escalations in wages, cost of packing, electricity duty, and transport charges. It found that the Tariff Commission had allowed reasonable escalations and that the methodology used was accurate and based on expert analysis. 6. Inclusion of Additional Bonus and Gratuity: The Court addressed the inclusion of gratuity and the recent increase in minimum bonus due to the Payment of Bonus Amendment Ordinance 1972. It found that gratuity had been included in the cost calculations. However, the Ordinance's increase in minimum bonus was not considered in the impugned order, as it was promulgated after the prices were fixed. The Court suggested that the government should take immediate action to adjust the prices accordingly. Conclusion: The writ petitions were dismissed, with the Court upholding the zonal system and the principles used for price fixation. It emphasized the need for the government to address the recommendations on rehabilitation and the recent changes in the bonus ordinance. The Court granted liberty to the parties to file applications for directions regarding the bank guarantees furnished.
|
