Zonal sugar price fixation under delegated power upheld where statutory factors were considered on a representative basis.

Section 3(3-C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 permits sugar price fixation on a zonal or regional basis using a representative cross-section of the industry, supported by expert material, and such a method is not arbitrary, discriminatory or ultra vires merely because individual factories have higher costs or losses. The phrase "having regard to" requires the Government to consider the listed statutory factors as relevant inputs, but it does not compel unit-wise pricing or exhaustive scrutiny of each producer's individual cost. The notifications were therefore upheld as a lawful exercise of delegated price-fixing power, and representative, area-based fixation satisfied the statutory scheme.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the zonal basis adopted for fixation of levy sugar price under section 3(3-C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was arbitrary, discriminatory or ultra vires. (ii) Whether the words "having regard to" in section 3(3-C) required unit-wise determination of price with strict and exclusive application of the statutory factors.

Issue (i): Whether the zonal basis adopted for fixation of levy sugar price under section 3(3-C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was arbitrary, discriminatory or ultra vires.

Analysis: Section 3(3-C) authorises the Central Government to determine the price of sugar for different areas, factories or kinds of sugar, having regard to the minimum cane price, manufacturing cost, duty or tax and a reasonable return on capital. The price is to be worked out for the industry on the basis of a representative cross-section, not by unit-wise fixation. The impugned notifications were supported by expert material and by the legislative policy of partial control. Geographical-cum-agro-economic grouping was held to have a rational nexus with the object of fixing a fair price and could not be struck down merely because some units had higher individual costs or suffered losses.

Conclusion: The zonal system was valid and was not discriminatory or ultra vires.

Issue (ii): Whether the words "having regard to" in section 3(3-C) required unit-wise determination of price with strict and exclusive application of the statutory factors.

Analysis: The phrase "having regard to" was construed as a legislative instruction requiring the Government to consider the stated factors as relevant data, but not as a rigid or exhaustive fetter. The statutory scheme shows that the notified price of sugar is a general price-fixing measure of legislative character, while the amount payable to individual producers is calculated separately. The Court held that the Government need only generally address itself to the statutory factors and act reasonably on relevant material; it is not required to fix price separately for each factory.

Conclusion: Unit-wise fixation was not mandated and the statutory requirement was satisfied by consideration of relevant factors on a representative basis.

Final Conclusion: The challenged price-fixation notifications were upheld as a lawful exercise of delegated power under the Act, and the writ petitions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Under section 3(3-C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, fixation of sugar price on a zonal or regional basis on the basis of a representative cross-section and relevant expert material is a valid legislative exercise, and the phrase "having regard to" requires consideration of statutory factors, not unit-wise determination or exhaustive scrutiny of each producer's individual cost.

---