CWP No. 2241 of 1987 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2241 of 1987 Date of decision July 5, 2011 The Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Gurdaspur and another ....... Petitioners Versus Union of India and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Rahul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arvind Mittal , Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Amit Rao, Advocate for Mr. S. K. Sharma, Advocate for respondent NO.5. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?No K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioners who are Sugar Mills seeks for quashing of the order passed by the Government of India, Ministry of Food and Supplies on 8.10.1986 rejecting the claim made by the predecessor Company of the petitioners M/s Punjab Khand Udyog Ltd., for the value of levy of sugar supplied to the State. The claim was made by the petitioner's predecessor on the ground that the price which had been originally fixed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in the manner set forth through the control orders was 345.29 per quintal but in terms of the directions CWP No. 2241 of 1987 2 given by the Delhi High Court for re-determination of price under the sugar (Price determination for 1980-81 Production) 1980 order, in respect of sugar produced in factories established in Schedule IV, the price was fixed 415.37 per quintal. The petitioners' plea is that the differential in price that was in excess secured through the order passed and published in gazette on 20.12.1985 shall be paid to the petitioner. 2. The impugned order records the fact that the price revision was subject to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court before which an appeal had been filed by the Union of India which was said to be pending at that time. The subsequent event had been that the Parliament has passed Essential Commodities (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2009 which amends Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and empowers the Central Government to determine price of essential commodities from time to time for different areas of factories and states that through Section 3 (i) of the amending Act that not withstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order, all things done or all accounts taken by the Central Government under specified orders would be deemed to have always been done in accordance with law. The “specified order” is defined under Section 3 (ii) of the amending Act to mean “ any order relating to the determination of price of sugar issued under sub Section 3-C of Section 3 of the Principle Act before 21st day of October, 2009 in relation to sugar produced in any sugar Mill up to 2008- 09. 3. The nature of outcome of the case before the Supreme Court is not apprised to this Court by the Union. If the amending Act validates the decision relating to price passed by Union Government, it should be understood that it would apply also to the price which was notified through amendment notification which was issued on 27.12.1985 (Annexure P-1) filed along with the writ petition. The higher price itself was CWP No. 2241 of 1987 3 not a price determination by the High Court but it is a price determined by the government pursuant to a direction from the Delhi High Court. This redetermination of price, in my view, must be taken as validated through the amending Act and the liability of the State shall be to effectuate through its functionality namely Department of Food and Supply the price as determined and become liable to the petitioners, the difference in price of what was originally fixed at 345.29 per quintal to the price as redetermined through the notification issued on 27.12.1985 namely at 415.37. The differential rate shall be worked out for the quantity of supply and paid within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order along with interest at 9% from the date when it fell due till the date of payment. 4. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 5, 2011 archana