- (1.) THE petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company filed this writ petition along with petitioner No. 2 who is a share holder of the aforesaid company, challenging the Government Order dated 4. 1. 2007 copy whereof is annexed as Annexure 9 to the writ petition. It was further prayed that the respondents be directed to determine the1 transportation cost of the sugar cane trans ported from purchase center to factory taking into account the price of diesel and other relevant factors involved and allow the rebate in accordance with the figures thus arrived at. A prayer has been made by the petitioner that a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the Clause 3-A of the Sugar Cane (Control) Order, 1966 being redundant. It is prayed that a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or " direction be issued quashing Clause 3-A of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 in so far as it limits permissible rebate of the transportation of one quintal of sugarcane for a distance of one kilometer at 2. 5 paise and limited to a maximum of 32 paise per quintal irrespective of distance involved and fixing maximum amount payable to the petitioner on account of transportation of sugarcane.
(2.) THE brief facts leading to filing of the present writ petition are that the petitioner is involved in manufacture of sugar from the sugarcane purchased within the area reserved for the petitioner. Petitioners' statement is that sugar industry is an industry which is controlled by both Union and State Governments. THE controversy in this writ petition is regarding price of the sugarcane fixed and recoverable by the manufactures under Clause 3-A of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. That in fact, the minimum price for sugarcane that shall be payable to the cane grower, the method of its computation, method of its payment, method of collection of sugarcane, profit sharing etc. are all facets that are subject of strict statutory control both by the Union and the State Governments enforced on pain of penalty for any manner of default in adherence. That Section 3 (1) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 empowers the Central Government to make Orders regulating or prohibiting the production, sup ply and distribution of Essential Commodities and trade and commerce therein. Said Section contemplates issuance of Orders there under inter alia for the pur pose of maintaining or increasing supplies of any essential commodity or for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices.
(3.) THAT the said Act defines "essential Commodity" in Section 2 (a) (v) to be any "foodstuffs including edible oilseeds and oils", by clause (b) "food crops" is defined to include crops of sugarcane. That in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the EC Act, the Central Government promulgated the Sugarcane Control Order, 1955. The same was later replaced by the Sugarcane Control Order, 1966. The said Order inter alia provides for fixation of the minimum price for Sugar Cane; which is known as Statutory Minimum Price (SMP ). Clause 3 (1) of the said Order mandates that SMP be fixed, having regard to the component factors ad numbered (a) (e) therein. The relevant portion of the said clause is reproduced herein below for ready reference: "clause 3 : Minimum price of sugarcane payable by producer of sugar: (1) The Central Government may, after consultation with such authori ties, bodies or associations as it may deem fit, by Notification in the official Gazette, from time to time, fix the minimum price of sugarcane to be paid by them, having regard to - (a) the cost of production of sugarcane; (b) the return to the grower from alternative crops and the general trend of prices of agricultural commodities; (c) the availability of sugar to the consumer at a fair price; (d) the price at which sugar produced from sugarcane is sold by producers of sugar; and (e) the recovery of sugar from sugarcane. ";