Statutory authority for cane price fixation disputed, with State advised price order stayed pending further orders.

The commentary addresses whether the State Government had any statutory power to fix a State Advised Cane Price under the U.P. Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. It notes the earlier Division Bench view that only the Central Government could fix the minimum cane price under Clause 3, and that there was no statutory basis for State-level fixation. It also records that the Supreme Court had passed an interim order noting the absence of such statutory basis. On that reasoning, the State's order dated 12.11.2002 was stayed and the State Government was directed not to fix such price until further orders.

---

---

Issues: Whether the State Government could fix the State Advised Cane Price and whether its order dated 12.11.2002 deserved to be stayed.

Analysis: The challenge was considered in light of the earlier Division Bench view that the minimum cane price could be fixed only by the Central Government under Clause 3 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and that there was no statutory basis for the State Government to fix a State Advised Cane Price. The order also noted that the Supreme Court had passed an interim order recording the absence of statutory basis for such fixation. On that basis, the respondents' reliance on other decisions was treated as distinguishable.

Conclusion: The State Government's order fixing the State Advised Cane Price was stayed and the State Government was directed not to fix such price till further orders.

---