IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.429 of 2009 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution), Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001. 2. The Joint Secretary (Sugar), Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution), Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001. 3. The Chief Director (Sugar), Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution), Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001. 4. The Deputy Director (Sugar Control), Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution), Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. Versus 1. M/S RIGA SUGAR COMPANY LTD.P.O. Righa, P.S. Riga, District Sitmarhi, through its General Manager, Shri P.R.S. Panicker. 2. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Food, Supply and Commerce, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, 5th Floor, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna through its Managing Director. 4. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Gopalganj. 5. The Secretary, Department of Food, Supply and Commerce, Government of Bihar, Patna. ----------- LPA No.438 of 2009 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution), Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001. 2. The Joint Secretary (Sugar), Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution), Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001. 3. The Chief Director (Sugar), Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution), - 2 - Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi – 110001. 4. The Deputy Director (Sugar Control), Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution), Government of India, Krishi Bhawan, New Delhi. Versus 1. M/S VISHNU SUGAR Mills LTD.,P.O. Harakhua, P.S. Vishnu Sugar Mills, District Gopalganj, through its General Manager, Shri P.R.S. Panicker. 2. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Food, Supply and Commerce, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., Sone Bhawan, 5th Floor, Bir Chand Patel Path, Patna through its Managing Director. 4. The District Manager, Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. Gopalganj. ----------- For the Appellants :- Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, C.G.C. For Respondent No. 1 : M/S. Y. V.Giri, Sr. Advocate & Ashish Giri For Respondent nos. 3 & 4: M/S. R. S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate & A. N. Rai For the State : Mr. Ritesh Kumar, A.C. to AAG I. & Mr. Sidharth Prasad, A.C. to AAG IX ---------- 8 20/07/2009 Heard learned counsel for the appellants, the Union of India and its officials and learned counsel for the respondents. We find that the writ Court has gone into all the legal and practical aspects of the controversy and has rightly come to the conclusion that in theory the authority cannot keep on adding the figures of sugar leviable on a producer of sugar so as to actually be in a position to demand for last several years an accumulated figure in excess of 10% which is presently the permissible quantity of levy sugar. - 3 - The writ Court has not imposed any restriction on future transactions but has merely given a time frame within which the so called arrears of levy sugar of the petitioner, in the facts of this case, may be demanded by the authorities so that the carry forward of levy sugar may come to an end so far as the past transactions are concerned. The writ Court has not interfered with the policy of the respondent authorities which is to demand 10% of the production by way of levy sugar nor it creates any hurdle in carry forward of demand for un-lifted levy sugar in future to any reasonable limits. The only limitation is that the carry forward rule must be practical and should not be stretched beyond a reasonable period ignoring the realities of lack of demand and non-utilisation of levy sugar in past years. We do not find any good reason to interfere with the order of the writ Court. Both the Letters Patent Appeals are, therefore, dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.) AMIN