Shabihul Hasnain, J. - (1.) 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.
(2.) 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. 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).
(3.) IT has also been pointed out that in Civil Appeal No. 7508 of 2005 [West U.P. Sugar Mills Association & others Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others] along with connected appeals, Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order and judgment dated 17.1.2012, has directed the sugar factories to pay the balance outstanding principal amount to the cane growers or to the co -operative societies according to SAP of the relevant crushing seasons and as such, on account of non -availability of the funds, petitioner is not in a position to pay the outstanding amount to the cane growers. Therefore, petitioner preferred a representation with reference to Section 3 (e) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, praying therein to allow the petitioner to sell 25000 MT per month of sugar from the current year's production apart from the general sugar release order.;