S.P. Bharucha, Faizanuddin, JJ. - (1.) PERMISSION to file Special Leave Petition is granted. Since the interpretation of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 and the Rules thereunder is called for, we grant leave.
(2.) AT the same time, we must record that our prima facie view of the provisions of the said Act and the Rules is that the State Government is not empowered to fix the State Advised Cane Price that it has purported to do. Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of this Court in Maharashtra Rajya Sahkari Sakkar Karkhana Sangh Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. : 1995 Supp (3) SCC 475. That was a case where the power to fix the price was conferred by Bye -laws framed under the Maharashtra Co -operative Societies Act The judgment in paragraph 12 refers to the fact that a State Advised Price is fixed in U.P. under orders issued under the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953, but that Act was not examined for the reasons that the Court was not concerned therewith. It has also been argued that the non -grant of an interim order will have certain consequences in regard to the sale and purchase of sugarcane by different parties; it has also been argued that the State Advised Price has been considered mandatory over a long period of years. Our object is to find a statutory basis for the State Advised Price. Since we find none, cannot issue any interim order and the consequence thereof cannot induce us to do so, nor the fact that the State Advised Price may have been understood to be mandatory for a long period of time. Accordingly, the interim order is refused.;