2002 (11) TMI 806 - HC - Indian Laws

State Advised Cane Price Ruled Illegal, Court Intervenes

The court found that the State Advised Cane Price set by the State Government was illegal as it lacked statutory authority, with the Central Government ... State Advised Cane Price - statutory minimum cane price - U.P. Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 - Clause 3 - absence of statutory power in the State Government to fix cane price - binding effect of earlier judicial orders and interim order of the Supreme CourtState Advised Cane Price - statutory minimum cane price - U.P. Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 - Clause 3 - absence of statutory power in the State Government to fix cane price - Validity of the State Government's practice of announcing a State Advised Cane Price as the Statutory Minimum Cane Price. - HELD THAT: - The Division Bench's earlier decision in C.M.W.P. No. 36889 of 1996 held that the State Advised Cane Price is illegal for two reasons: (i) the authority to fix the minimum cane price lies with the Central Government as evident from Clause 3 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966; and (ii) there is no statutory provision empowering the State Government to fix a State Advised Cane Price. The Supreme Court's interim order dated 22.1.1997 also recorded that there is no statutory basis for the State Government to fix the State Advised Cane Price. The High Court found no consideration in the decisions relied upon by respondents that answered these specific points and therefore regarded those authorities as distinguishable. On these grounds the Court reaffirmed that the State Government lacks statutory power to fix the State Advised Cane Price and that the State's continued fixation of such a price flagrantly contravenes the earlier judgments. [Paras 4, 5, 7]The fixation of a State Advised Cane Price as the statutory minimum is without statutory basis and contrary to the earlier decisions of this Court and the interim order of the Supreme Court; the State has no power to fix such a price under the U.P. Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 read as a whole.Binding effect of earlier judicial orders and interim order of the Supreme Court - interim stay - Interim relief in respect of the State Government order dated 12.11.2002 fixing the State Advised Cane Price. - HELD THAT: - Having noted the recent press release dated 12.11.2002 by which the State purported to fix the State Advised Cane Price, and in view of the prior Division Bench judgment and the Supreme Court's interim order which found no statutory basis for such fixation, the High Court exercised its power to preserve the status quo. The Court stayed the operation of the State's order dated 12.11.2002 and directed the State Government to desist from fixing the State Advised Cane Price until further orders, thereby preventing implementation pending adjudication of the petitioner's challenge. [Paras 6, 8]Operation of the State Government's order dated 12.11.2002 fixing the State Advised Cane Price is stayed and the State is directed to desist from fixing the State Advised Cane Price until further orders.Final Conclusion: The High Court reaffirmed that the State lacks statutory authority to fix a State Advised Cane Price as the statutory minimum (holding that the power to fix the minimum cane price lies with the Central Government under Clause 3 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and there is no statutory provision permitting the State to do so) and, in the meantime, stayed and restrained operation and implementation of the State Government's order dated 12.11.2002 fixing such a price. Issues Involved: The legality of the State Advised Cane Price and the authority to fix the minimum cane price.Judgment Summary:Issue 1: Legality of State Advised Cane Price The petitioners sought to restrain the State Government from announcing any State Advised Cane Price. A previous Division Bench judgment highlighted that the State Advised Cane Price is deemed illegal due to the absence of statutory provisions allowing the State Government to fix it. The Central Government is the designated authority to fix the minimum cane price as per the U. P. Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. The Supreme Court also supported this stance in an interim order, emphasizing the lack of statutory basis for the State Government to determine the State Advised Cane Price. Despite these rulings, the State Government continued to disregard the judgments, prompting the High Court to intervene and stay the operation of the order fixing the State Advised Cane Price.Issue 2: Authority to Fix Minimum Cane Price The Court noted that the decisions cited by the respondents did not address the crucial question of whether there exists a statutory basis for setting the State Advised Cane Price. The contention that only the Central Government, under Clause 3 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, has the power to establish the minimum cane price remained unchallenged. Additionally, a previous decision of the Court, which was stayed by the Supreme Court, further supported the exclusive authority of the Central Government in fixing the minimum cane price. Consequently, the State Government was directed to refrain from determining the State Advised Cane Price until further orders, aligning with the legal precedents established by the High Court and the Supreme Court.