AMITAVA LALA, J. - (1.) THE petitioners are the companies under the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction's (hereinafter in short called as 'BIFR'). They have contended before this Court that the demand raised by the respondent authorities is with regard to the State Advised Price (hereinafter in short called as 'SAP') for the crushing years 2002-03 and 2006-2007. Mr. Navin Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended before this Court that so far as the crushing year 2002-03 is concerned, there is a clear observation of the High Court and the Supreme Court, therefore, the amount, which has been appropriated, can be adjusted only on the order being passed by the BIFR. The relevant portion of the orders of the High Court and the Supreme Court are as under : Order of the High Court dated 29th April, 2005 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48159 of 2002 (West U.P. Sugar Mills Association and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others) : "it is also to be remembered that some of the defaulted companies are under BIFR. Unless proposal comes from them voluntarily through the Association, as in the case, legal necessity may enter into the arena." Order of the Supreme Court dated 6th March, 2006 passed in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos. 10873-10874 of 2005 (U.P. Cane Union Federation Ltd. v. West U.P Sugar Mills Association and others ) : "However, this order shall not affect those sugar mills which have been referred to BIFR in terms of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Cane (Regulation of Supply and Production) Act, 1953."
(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the petitioners have requested that so far as SAP to be paid by them for the crushing year 2006-07 is concerned, they should be given some breathing time. According to the petitioners, they want to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) immediately. So far as the balance sum is concerned, they stated that 50% of the same will be paid within 45 days thereafter and rest will be paid in four equal quarterly installments. Mr. Sinha further stated that immediately on payment of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- operation of the bank account should be allowed to continue by the Court otherwise the entire sale proceeds will go to that account and the petitioner companies will not be able to function at all. However, we find that the Supreme Court has already passed an order dated 8th September, 2008 in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18681 of 2008 (East U.P. Sugar Mills Association and others v. State of U.P. and others), in respect of two crushing seasons i.e. 2006-07 and 2007-08. The relevant portion of the order of the Supreme Court is as follows : "So far as the payment of the charges for Crushing Season 2006-07, 2007-08 are concerned the following directions are given : (i) For the Crushing Season 2006-07 the payment at the rates indicated above i.e. Rs. 115, 118 and 123 shall be the rates. (ii) So far as the Crushing Season 2007-08 is concerned the rate shall be Rs. 110/- but no deduction for transport charges shall be calmed or adjusted. It is brought to our notice that large sums even on the basis of the aforesaid rates remain to be paid by the State owned Corporations, Cooperative Sugar Mills and the privately set up sugar mills. The deficit amount, if any, shall be paid by the concerned mills within a period of four weeks from today. If any excess payment has been made, there shall not be any claim for refund." The petitioners are party to such proceedings before the Supreme Court. The petitioners only grievance is that since the companies are under the BIFR, some sort of relaxation is to be given to them for their survival. However, we are of the view that judicial propriety demands that the period can not be extended by the High Court when a direction has been given by the Supreme Court fixing a period. In any event it is open for the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court for necessary reliefs as claimed above, if so advised. We have come to know that the matter is again fixed before the Supreme Court on 14th November, 2008. Hence, the petitioners can approach before the Supreme Court on the said date or any other day, as per their choice.
(3.) WITH the above observations, we treat this writ petition as disposed of, however, without imposing any cost. Decided accordingly.;