- (1.) The crucial issue involved in this group of matters is whether the State of Uttar Pradesh has the authority to fix the State Advised Price (for short, 'SAP'), which is required to be 3paid over and above the minimum price fixed by the Central Government
(2.) It is submitted by the appellants that the power to regulate distribution, sale or purchase of cane under Section 16 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as the 'U.P. Sugarcane Act') does not include the power to fix a price. According to the appellants, this aspect has been comprehensively dealt with by the Constitution Bench judgment of this court in Ch. Tika Ramji and others etc. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,1956 1 SCR 393. In this case this Court enumerated the legislative history of laws relating to sugar and sugarcane of both Centre and States. This Court came to the specific conclusion that the power reserved to the State Government to fix the minimum price of sugarcane which existed in U.P. Act 1 of 1938 was deleted from the U.P. Sugarcane Act since that power was being exercised by the Centre under Clause 3 of the Sugar and Gur Control Order, 1950. The relevant paragraphs from pages 422, 433 and 434 of the Tika Ramji's case are reproduced as under: "Even the power reserved to the State Government to fix minimum prices of sugarcane under Chapter V of U.P. Act I of 1938 was deleted from the impugned Act the same being exercised by the Centre under clause 3 of Sugar and Gur Control Order, 1950, issued by it in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of Act XXIV of 1946. The prices fixed by the Centre were adopted by the State Government required under rule 94 was that the occupier of a factory or the purchasing agent should cause to be put up at each purchasing centre a notice showing the minimum price of cane fixed by the Government meaning thereby the Centre. The State Government also incorporated these prices which were notified by the Centre from time to time in the forms of the agreements which were to be entered between the cane growers, the cane growers cooperative societies." "As we have noted above, the U.P. State Government did not at all provide for the fixation of minimum prices for sugarcane nor did it provide for the regulation of movement of sugarcane as was done by the Central Government in clauses (3) and (4) of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1955. The impugned Act did not make any provision for the same and the only provision in regard to the price of sugarcane which was to be found in the U.P. Sugarcane Rules, 1954, was contained in Rule 94 which provided that a notice of suitable size in clear bold lines showing the minimum price of cane fixed by the Government and the rates at which the cane is being purchased by the centre was to be put up by an occupier of a factory or the purchasing agent as the case may be at each purchasing centre. The price of cane fixed by Government here only meant the price fixed by the appropriate Government which would be the Central Government, under clause 3 of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1955, because in fact the U.P. State Government never fixed the price of sugarcane to be purchased by the factories. Even the provisions in behalf of the agreements contained in clauses 3 and 4 of the U.P. Sugarcane Regulation of Supply and Purchase Order, 1954, provided that the price was to be the minimum price to be notified by the Government subject to such deductions, if any, as may be notified by the Government from time to time meaning thereby the Central Government, the State Government not having made any provision in that behalf at any time whatever."
(3.) It has been specifically held in Tika Ramji's case that there was no power to fix a price for sugarcane under the U.P. Sugarcane Act or rules and orders made thereunder.;