Shabihul Hasnain, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Anoop Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) IT has been stated at bar that the controversy involved in this petition is similar to that of W.P. No. 471 (MS) 2012 and is squarely covered by the decision dated 20.1.2012 passed in the said writ petition. It has been stated that due to excessive and arbitrary fixation of State Advised Cane Price along with low sugar realisation, the financial condition of the petitioner's company has deteriorated and has resulted in serious liquidity crunch. The sugar release order dated 29.12.2011 passed by the respondent was inadequate as in the said release order, the petitioner has prayed for release of 25,000 MT of sugar per month in addition to the normal release, but the opposite parties while passing the release order dated 29.12.2011 has only allowed release of 5316.1 MT of sugar for the entire units of the petitioner's company, which is inadequate.
(3.) IT has further been stated that a reference was made by the petitioner's company to the opposite party, who is designated as Prescribed Authority under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 but the opposite parties are sitting tight over the reference and is imposing the restriction from selling the free sale sugar, despite the fact that this Court in the case of Shakumbari Sugar & Allied Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India & others held that the restriction placed on the producer of sugar to sell free -sale sugar beyond the quota is illegal and violative of Article 19(1) (g).;