TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the State Government has power under Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 to fix an advised price of sugarcane higher than the minimum price fixed by the Central Government; (ii) whether such State fixation is repugnant to Section 3(2)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966; (iii) whether the earlier decision and the later Constitution Bench decision were in conflict requiring reference to a larger Bench.
Issue (i): Whether the State Government has power under Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 to fix an advised price of sugarcane higher than the minimum price fixed by the Central Government.
Analysis: Section 16 empowers the State Government to regulate the distribution, sale and purchase of cane in reserved and assigned areas. That regulatory power was held to include fixation of a State Advised Price. The later regulatory scheme under the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 distinguishes between the minimum price fixed by the Central Government and the advised or agreed price payable under arrangements for supply. The State fixation operates above, and not below, the Central minimum price.
Conclusion: The State Government does have power to fix an advised price higher than the minimum price fixed by the Central Government.
Issue (ii): Whether such State fixation is repugnant to Section 3(2)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and Clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966.
Analysis: Repugnancy under Article 254 arises only where the two enactments are irreconcilable and cannot operate together. The Central law fixes the minimum price, while the State law fixes a higher advised price. A higher State price does not conflict with the Central minimum price and can be complied with consistently with the Central scheme. Repugnancy would arise only if the State price were lower than the Central minimum price.
Conclusion: The State provision is not repugnant to the Central enactment so long as the advised price remains above the Central minimum price.
Issue (iii): Whether the earlier decision and the later Constitution Bench decision were in conflict requiring reference to a larger Bench.
Analysis: The earlier decision proceeded on a different statutory and factual setting, where the State had not fixed any price and the Central order then in force empowered fixation of price or minimum price. The later decision dealt with a subsequent legal regime in which the Central order fixed only the minimum price and contemplated an agreed price above it. Read in context, the decisions are not irreconcilable.
Conclusion: There is no conflict requiring reference to a larger Bench.
Final Conclusion: The State's power to fix a sugarcane advised price above the Central minimum price was upheld, and the later Constitution Bench view was affirmed as the correct law.
Ratio Decidendi: In a concurrent field, repugnancy arises only when State and Central laws are irreconcilable; where the Central law fixes a minimum price and the State law fixes a higher advised price, both can operate together and the State law is valid.
TaxTMI 
