Palok Basu, J. - (1.) Though three points of difference have been noted by my two revered brothers Hon'ble R. R. K. Trivedi and Hon'ble; R. K. Singh, JJ. in this bunch of writ petitions but the principal difference appears to be relating to the alleged claim of the Collector demanding 10% of recovery charges amounting to about Rs. 44 lacs on what was supposed to have been due against the petitioners' liability having arisen under Section 17 (4) of the U. P. Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953.
(2.) In a nutshell the factual difference should be summarised before adverting to the aforesaid three points. There was a challenge as to the liability of the petitioners who are Sugar Mills to the demand of the Cane Commissioner on what should have been termed as payment of sugar cane price to the cane growers. Whether or not the State Advised Price was rightly demanded by the Cane Commissioner was initially the question. However, on the demand being raised by the Cane Commissioner, all the petitioners came up to this Court by various writ petitions and obtained interim orders but finally the writ petitions were dismissed and the stay order stood vacated. The Hon'ble Supreme Court entertained S.L.P., and passed interim orders directing payments to be made in instalments. All the petitioners admittedly abided by the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, went on paying the amounts in instalments and thus liquidating the entire amount said to have been due against them. Having thus received the entire amount, the Cane Commissioner wrote to the Collector withdrawing recovery proceedings which were said to have been initiated at the instance of the said Cane Commissioner. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that the Collector or some one on behalf of the Collector demanded the aforesaid amount of Rs. 44 lacs from the petitioners which according to the Collector purports to be "10% of the dues", which were to be paid by the petitioners to the Cane Commissioner.
(3.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision subsequently dismissing the writ petitions as withdrawn does not leave any other matter surviving either in the Hon'ble Supreme Court or in this Court. The recovery charges have not been specifically dealt with either under the orders of the High Court or by the Supreme Court. Admittedly, the recovery certificate has been withdrawn.;