The grievance of the respondent in the main was that the change and modification made by the Madhya Bharat Government in the definition of essential commodities given in the Act by including sugar therein was against the law, that the Director of Civil Supplies had no authority before 6th September, 1949 to issue the Sugar Control order, 1949 which had been issued on 5th September, 1949; that the State Government or the Director of Civil Supplies, Madhya Bharat had no power under the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act and the Sugar Control Order to impose a levy styled as 'Sugar Fund ' and to recover the same; that the levy and collection of tax/impost styled as 'Sugar Fund ' by the Director of Civil Supplies being violative of article 265 OF the Constitution, was illegal and invalid; that the provisions of Sugar Control Order, 1949 did not empower the Director of Civil Supplies to fix any price 564 other than ex factory wholesale or retail price or to fix a price which be called supply price or to impose and collect levy as 'Sugar Fund '; that is was illegal and unconstitutional for the Director of Civil Supplies to fix different ex factory prices for different sugar mills in the same State; that it was illegal and unconstitutional to collect money through certain mills for creating Sugar Fund when other factories in the same State were being exempted from doing so that there was clear discrimination in fixing ex factory price of sugar in respect of respondents ' mill lower than ex factory price fixed for; certain other mills in the State without there being a rational basis for the same; and that the levy and collection of certain money from the respondents being without lawful authority and without legislative competence, the State was bond to refund the same.