Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) -This writ petition is made by the West U. P. Sugar Mills Association along with other sugar mills associations and individual sugar mills for the purpose of getting various common reliefs mainly as regards fixation of State Advised Price ( hereinafter called as SAP) of sugarcane of the year 2002-2003. However an application for amendment of the writ petition was filed by the petitioners which was allowed on 24th September, 2004. Thus the writ petition was restricted only with regard to the prayers (c) and (d) as follows : "(c) pass a writ, order or direction restraining the State Government from diverting public funds for political purposes by giving subsidies/loans to the Corporation and Cooperative factories ; (d) in the alternative direct the State Government to pay similar subsidies to private sector sugar factories also ;"
(2.) AGAIN the petitioners wanted to incorporate various grounds by making amendment application which was allowed on 3rd March, 2006. Altogether 22 grounds were added in paragraph 39 attacking a letter of the State Government dated 5th October, 2004 received by them during the pendency of the writ petition. By such letter private sector sugar factories were directed to pay the cane price for the crushing season 2002-2003 at the similar rate fixed for the sugar factories belonging to the U. P. State Sugar Corporation and Cooperative Societies. However no prayer is made challenging the validity of the letter. A plea has been taken that since representation had been made to the Hon'ble Chief Minister by the petitioners and since the matter is under consideration, the letter dated 5th October, 2004 is not challenged. According to us if the aforesaid plea is correct then the writ petition is premature in nature. However from the record we find that during the pendency of the writ petition once the petitioners wanted to obtain an interim order as regards payment of arrears when the parties were heard at length. This court was pleased to observe that most of the petitioners have been fully paid the amount allegedly due and payable by them. Some of the petitioners have only dues of 25% �. Such petitioners were directed to pay the outstanding within a month of passing the order by this Court. No order was passed against the petitioner companies which are under Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (B.I.F.R.). Only petitioners No. 5 and 41 were shown as defaulters who were directed to pay the alleged dues in instalments. Relevant order is dated 29th April, 2005. Inspite of the same an appeal was preferred to the Supreme Court of India from such order. However either such parties paid the dues within the time stipulated by this Court or by the order of the Supreme Court dated 6th March, 2006 arose from the above order. The Supreme Court held in Civil Appeal No. 1646 of 2006, U.P. Cane Union Federation Ltd. v. West U. P. Sugar Mills Association and others that in view of the decision of the another Division Bench of this Court (read as parallel Bench of the Supreme Court) in S.L.P. (C) No. 23495 of 2004 West U. P. Sugar Mills Association and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and other directing to pay the rest of the amount calculated in terms of the order passed by the State, fixing cane price, members of the respondent No. 1 therein (members of the petitioner No. 1 herein) are directed to pay the difference of price within the specified period taking into consideration the amount already paid by the mill owners and upon making calculation of the amount due and payable. Thus the writ petition virtually lost its force. So far as the reliefs are concerned, first one is in the nature of public interest litigation wherein the second one is in the nature of policy decision. Even if this Court observes that the amendment is, in effect, touching the point of subsidy yet it is apparent that a challenge has been thrown in respect of a policy decision of the State. It is true to say that State cannot be allowed to take the plea of defence of policy decision as a shield to avoid the process of court of law. It is well known that policy decision is not sacrosanct state of affairs but subject to legal sanction as decided by one of us (Hon'ble Amitava Lala J.) in All Bengal Rickshaw Union and others v. State of West Bengal and others, AIR 2000 Cal 186. But in respect of a policy matter one has to approach the policy makers at first in case any decision goes against the interest of the public. Court does not necessarily enter into the arena of policy decision without any foundation. Executives have no role to play with the policy made by the Legislature but to implement it.
(3.) THEREFORE the writ petition seems to be misconceived in nature irrespective of any further discussion. There are three important aspects available in the letter dated 5th October, 2004. The first aspect is that the sugar mills of the private sector of the State had agreed with the cane societies/cane growers and given written consent on the cane supply on purchies that the payment of cane price shall be made in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has already decided the matter.;