SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. - (1.) THESE four appeals call in question a common order of the learned single Judge dismissing the writ petitions of the appellants and hence the appeals are being disposed of by one single order.
(2.) THE appellants before us are all sugar mills which seek to raise the issue of determination of levy sugar price under the Sugar (Price Determination for 1972 -73) Production Order, 1972. The dispute has had a chequered history. It is vide CWP No.780 of 1973 and other connected matters that the issue of levy price was raised. The matters were taken up together and vide the orders dated 19.1.2001 were dismissed on the sole ground that they were covered by two decisions of the Supreme Court in M/s Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 1277 and Shri Malaprabha Co -op. Sugar Factory Ltd. vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1994 SC 1311. All the petitioners preferred LPAs which were decided vide the main order passed in LPA No.1956 of 2001 on 12.8.2010. The Division Bench considered all the aspects of the matter in a detailed judgment and did not find anything in favour of the appellants. The operative paragraph -21 is as under: - "21. Thus, though we are of the view that no particular point has been shown to us which may justify interference with the fixation of price under the impugned order, learned counsel for the appellants stated that in absence of proper instructions from his client, he could not raise some of the points which he could have raised if he had all the instructions. Learned counsel for the respondents was also unable to properly assist the court for want of instructions as stated by him. Order of stay has been operative for the last almost 37 years. We do not find any ground to further adjourn the matter to enable the counsel to seek instructions. Number of adjournments have already been granted. Still, while closing the matter as far as this court is concerned, we consider it proper to give indulgence to the appellants to make a representation to the Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Food) who may consider the same and pass an appropriate order dealing with the points which may be raised within three months from the date of receipt of the said representation and a copy of this order. Interim order granted by this Court which was continued during pendency of these appeals will continue till such an order is passed. On passing of such an order, interim order so granted will cease to operate, subject to such order that may be passed on the representation."
(3.) A perusal of the aforesaid shows that the controversy of the fixation of levy sugar price was put to an end so far as judicial adjudication was concerned by observing "closing the matter as far as this court is concerned", but for some reason another indulgence was shown to the appellants, to be able to obtain some relief administratively, if they were so advised, by making a representation. It is this liberty which has started a second round of litigation.;