- (1.) Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 22251 of 1997.
(2.) In this group of appeals, the questions that arise for decision are these: (1) Whether the State Government is competent to fix State-advised price for purchase of sugarcane by an occupier of a factory over and above the minimum price fixed under clause 3 and additional price under clause 5-A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 framed under the essential Commodities Act, 1955. (2) Whether the State or statutory authority under its regularity power conferred by the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) act, 1953, Rules and Orders framed thereunder has an obligation to ensure proper price of the sugarcane supplied by the sugarcane-grower to an occupier of a factory and thus the authority is required to arrange a meeting of sugarcane-growers/societies and occupier of the factory for reaching an agreed price of the sugarcane. (3) Whether the agreed sugarcane price as contemplated under sub- clause (3-A) of clause 3 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 is required to be entered into writing in Form B or Form C or it can be oral also or it can be culled out from the parchis (receipts) issued under Rule 96 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954.
(3.) Civil Appeal No. 460 of 1997, CA No. 461 of 1997 and SLP No. 22251 of 1997 arise out of judgment in Writ Petition No. 36889 of 1996 filed before the Allahabad High Court by the occupiers of the sugar factories who are respondents in these appeals. The respondents herein challenged the state-advised price fixed by the U. P. State Government for the crushing season 1996-97. The Division Bench of that High Court quashed the fixation of the State-advised price on the ground that the State Government does not possess any such power. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed.;