ORDER B.L. Yadav, J. - By present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution order dated 19-7-1989 passed by the Sole Arbitrator appointed under Rule 108 of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules (for short the Rules) rejecting the submissions of petitioner against the recovery certificate issued to the petitioner for recovery of sum of Rs. 14,21,357.29 p. as the arrears of dues including the interest etc. and the order dated 19-12-1989 passed by the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur in appeal under Rule 118 of the Rules rejecting the appeal (Annexure 22 and 24 respectively) are sought to be quashed. Further, by means of supplementary affidavit provisions of Section 17(2) and (3) of U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act 1953 (for short the Act) are sought to be declared void and inoperative, and the provisions of Clause 3-A (I-B) of the Act are sought to be declared ultra vires. 2. The factual matrix of the case are that the Pratap Pur Sugar & Industries Limited, Pratap Pur, District Deoria is a limited Company registered under the Indian Companies Act and carries on the business of manufacture and sale of sugar at Pratap Pur in District of Deoria and the sugarcane is main raw material for the sugar industry and the same is essential commodity under the provisions of Essential Commodities Act 1955. Union of India issued Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 (for short the Control Order) in exercise of its powers conferred under S. 3 of Essential Commodities Act. Under Cl. 3 of the Control Order, minimum statutory price of sugarcane was fixed which was payable by the petitioner, the producer of sugar, after consultation of the authorities. In view of the arrears due, recovery certificate was issued on 23-3-89 by Cane Commissioner, Lucknow and the details of dues payable by the petitioner to Pratap Pur Cane Development Union (for short the Cane Union) were indicated in the certificate. The Recovery Certificate was forwarded to Collector, Deoria for necessary action which was challenged by means of writ petition before this Court. A Division Bench of this court by order dated 19-4-89 (Annexure 20) directed the petitioner to avail alternative remedy by making an application before arbitrator. The Recovery Certificate was forwarded to Collector, Deoria for necessary action which was challenged by means of writ petition before this Court. A Division Bench of this court by order dated 19-4-89 (Annexure 20) directed the petitioner to avail alternative remedy by making an application before arbitrator. In pursuance of those directions, petitioner went before the Arbitrator who, in turn, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing relevant records came to the conclusion vide order dated 19-7-89 (Annexure 22) that a sum of Rs. 14,21,357.29 p. was due from the petitioner payable to the Cane Union. Against that order appeal was preferred before the Commissioner which was dismissed by the order dated 19-1-89 (Annexure 24). Against these orders present petition has been filed. 3. Mr. J.N. Tewari and Mr. V.C. Mishra, learned senior advocates of this Court appeared for the petitioner and Mr. H.S. Nigam learned advocate, appeared for the respondents. Learned counsel for both the parties agreed and suggested that as counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged petition may be decided on merits. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that Section 17(2), (3) & (4) of the Act are ultra vires and that the petitioner has made regular payment of statutory minimum price fixed by Union of India under clause 3 of the Control Order and that the price declared by the State Government is merely an advised price and does not constitute price within the meaning of Clause 3 of the Control Order, hence no interest can be claimed by the respondent No. 4 on the said amount. The reliance was placed on M/s. Shervani Sugar Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1979 All 394 and Thuru Arooram Sugars v. Dy. Commercial Tax Officer, Mannargudi, (1988) 71 STC 444 (Mad). 5. Learned counsel for the respondents Sri H.S. Nigam and the Standing Counsel on the other hand urged that the provisions of S. 17(2), (3) & (4)of the Act are not ultra vires and the impugned orders are perfectly correct and legal. It was further urged that as the petitioner has been making payment of the advised price by the State Government in past and has never raised any such objection rather he has entered into agreement for payment of advised price, under law he is now estopped from challenging the same. 6. It was further urged that as the petitioner has been making payment of the advised price by the State Government in past and has never raised any such objection rather he has entered into agreement for payment of advised price, under law he is now estopped from challenging the same. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the first point for determination is as to whether S. 17(2), (3) & (4) of the Act are ultra vires. U.P. (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Act, 1953 has been enacted by U.P. Legislature. The Legislative competence of the State of U.P. was challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. After several inquisitive questions as to how provisions of S. 17(2) providing the liability of the occupier of factory to pay price of sugarcane purchased, sub-clause (3) providing payment of interest if within 15 days price of sugarcane was not paid, sub-clause (4) providing that the Collector shall forward the recovery certificate for amount due, were ultra vires, Mr. Tewari suggested that lack of legislative competence was the basis for these provisions being ultravires, and also Section 17(2), (3) & (4) of the U.P. Act was inconsistent to clause (3) of the Control Order. 7. The object of the Act is to promote the sugarcane factories and to ensure a fair deal to the growers of the sugarcane. This object is manifest by the clause 3 of the Control Order which indicates that in fixation of the price of the sugarcane, Central Government shall take into account the price of production of the sugarcane and the return to the grower, from alternative crops, the availability of the sugar to the consumer at the fair price and the recovery of sugar from the sugarcane. The object of the control order is to maintain harmony between the sugarcane growers and the sugar factories and to enable both of them to share profits reasonably. In fixation of the price, view point of the sugarcane growers have to be taken into account. See Indian Sugar and Refineries Ltd. v. Amravathi Service Co-operative Society Ltd., AIR 1976 SC 775 . The Control Order has been enacted under item 33 of the Concurrent List. The Act contains regulatory measures. The object of Act is to regulate supply and purchase of sugarcane required for use in sugar factories and other connected matters. See Indian Sugar and Refineries Ltd. v. Amravathi Service Co-operative Society Ltd., AIR 1976 SC 775 . The Control Order has been enacted under item 33 of the Concurrent List. The Act contains regulatory measures. The object of Act is to regulate supply and purchase of sugarcane required for use in sugar factories and other connected matters. The U.P. Legislature has enacted the Act not in respect of an occupied field and the provisions of the Act are supplementary and complimentary. The provisions do not run counter to the provisions of the Control Order. 8. In order to ascertain the first submission that S. 17(2), (3) & (4) of the Act are ultra vires, it is necessary to have the scheme of the Act in brief. Chapter 1 contains definition clause. Chapter 2 (Sections 3 to 11) contains administrative machinery. Chapter 3 (Sections 12 to 19) deals with supply and purchase of cane. Section 17(2), (3) & (4) falls under this Chapter. Section 12 provides that cane grower may require occupier of factory to furnish an estimate of quantity of cane. Section 13 provides that producer of the sugar shall maintain a register of all such cane growers to supply the sugarcane. Section 14 enacts power of State Government to make survey of the area proposed to be reserved or assigned for supply of the cane to the factories. Section 15 provides declaration of reserved area and assigned area. Section 16 enacts regulation of purchase and supply of cane in reserved and assigned areas. Section 17 deals with the payment of cane price purchased by producer of sugar. Section 17(2) provides that once the sugarcane has been purchased by the purchaser of the sugarcane, he shall be liable to pay immediately, the price of the cane purchased or supplied together with all other amounts connected with the same. Section 17(3) provides that in case the occupier of the factory makes default in payment of the price, exceeding 15 days from the date of delivery of the sugarcane, he shall pay interest at the rate of 71/2% and in view of the proviso added to sub-section (3) this 71/2% would be read as 12%. Section 17(3) provides that in case the occupier of the factory makes default in payment of the price, exceeding 15 days from the date of delivery of the sugarcane, he shall pay interest at the rate of 71/2% and in view of the proviso added to sub-section (3) this 71/2% would be read as 12%. Section 17(4) enacts that in case the occupier of the factory has failed to make payment of the price of the sugarcane and other incidental amounts, in that event the Cane Commissioner shall forward to the Collector a certificate to be called 'Recovery Certificate' under his signature specifying the amount of arrears and the Collector shall thereafter proceed to recover the same from the occupier as if the amount so recoverable was arrears of land revenue. 9. U.P. Legislature has legislative power under Entry 27 of the List II, State List of VIIth Schedule of the Constitution to enact U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply & Purchase) Act particularly Sections 17 (2), (3) & (4). The Act does not deal with sugar industry, rather it deals with production, supply & distribution of goods i.e. sugarcane which was within exclusive sphere of State Legislature. But this was subject to Entry 33 of List III under which State and Union both have concurrent power to legislate on matters of trade and commerce and production, supply and distribution of the products of any industry where the control of such industry by the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest. Other industries were governed by Entry 24 of List II State List which was subject to Entries 7 & 52 of List I. Article 366(12) of the Constitution provides an inclusive definitions to `goods' to include all materials, commodities and articles. As the definition is inclusive the definition of `goods' in Sale of Goods Act, 1930 is also followed in interpreting the definition of goods under Article 366(12). 10. In the present case we are concerned only with a limited item of raw material, required for sugar industry i.e. supply and purchase of sugarcane, rather than the process of manufacture or the distribution of the products of the sugar industry. 10. In the present case we are concerned only with a limited item of raw material, required for sugar industry i.e. supply and purchase of sugarcane, rather than the process of manufacture or the distribution of the products of the sugar industry. In this connection certain entries in the legislative List and some other provisions of the Constitution have to be interpreted and for that one has to bear in mind that the Constitution of a country is a fundamental law and a living document hence it is not to be interpreted in narrow and pedantic sense. Broad and liberal spirit should inspire those who are called upon to interpret the Constitution. The three lists in the 7th Schedule are demarcated field of legislation and their limits have been specifically demarcated. These entries conferring legislative powers must be construed most liberally and in their widest possible amplitude. Inconsistency can be inferred only when State & Central legislations are fully inconsistent and absolutely irreconcilable. A nominal or minimal encroachment, if any has to be avoided by applying the doctrine of pith and substance. 11. The U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 deals with the raw material required for a sugar factory and it was enacted under Entry 27 of List II of 7th Schedule. The Act does not deal with the Industry but only raw material required for sugar industry. 12. In a Constitution Bench case, Tika Ramji v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1956 SC 676 , under paras 24 & 25 their Lordships of Supreme Court having considered the matter in detail and held that U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 was not ultra vires rather it was intra vires of U.P. Legislature. The following observations are relevant : "The Act goes to show that it merely confined itself to the regulation of the supply and purchase of sugarcane required for use in sugar factories and did not concern itself at all with the controlling or licensing the sugar factories, with the production or manufacture of sugar or with the trade and commerce in, and the production, supply and distribution of sugar. If that was so, there was no question whatever of its trenching upon the jurisdiction of the Centre in regard to sugar industry which was a controlled industry within Entry 52 of List 1 and the U.P. Legislature had jurisdiction to enact the law with regard to sugarcane and had legislative competence to enact the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act." 13. In view of the aforesaid final opinion in the Constitution Bench case it is no longer open to the petitioner to challenge the vires of the Act and having scrutinised the matter at considerable length, I am of the opinion that the Act is not ultra vires nor it can be said to be inconsistent with the provisions of clause 3 of Sugarcane Control Order, 1966. 14. Reverting to the price fixation by the State, in M/s. Sukhnandan Saran Dinesh Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 902 , it was observed as follows: "Price fixation measure is for protection of the farmer from the exactions of producers against which he cannot protect himself. The impugned measure ensures price either fixed or negotiated and, therefore, it is a restriction which is undoubtedly reasonable and is imposed in the interest of general public and the guarantee of freedom of trade is not violated." 15. In view of the aforesaid observations advised price of the State Government is for the protection of the farmer and it is with a view to regulate supply and ensure price so fixed. The State Government recommends advised price keeping in view the cost of production of sugarcane, return from the grower and availability of the sugar to the same at a fair price as provided under para 3 of the Control Order. 16. In the present case the price fixed was not excessive nor the same can he held to he illegal. As the amount due was not paid by the petitioner within the time prescribed, the interest was also correctly imposed. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the Recovery Certificate was in any way invalid or contained excessive amount as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Legislature has taken all the precautions to see that the amount contained in the recovery certificate was scrutinised by the Arbitrator and also by the appellate court. 17. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the Recovery Certificate was in any way invalid or contained excessive amount as urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Legislature has taken all the precautions to see that the amount contained in the recovery certificate was scrutinised by the Arbitrator and also by the appellate court. 17. So far as the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are concerned, M/s. Shervani Sugar Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1979 All 394 was a case where the actual controversy involved in the present petition was not considered, Rather it was a case where the principles were considered for fixation of basic minimum price of sugarcane in view of the provisions of clause 3(1)of Control Order, 1966 by the Union of India. The principles of interpretation of clause 3 of the said Control Order were pointed out which did indicate that the advised price of the State Government is also a material factor for fixation of the basic minimum price of sugarcane. In such matters the factors including availability of the sugar to the consumer at fair price in the preceding year or the expression "having regard to" in clause 3(1) is very exhaustive as the words have life and meaning infused in them through the context in which they are used. It is obligatory on the part of the Central Government to take into consideration these factors enumerated in clause 3 before coming to a decision with regard to the price of sugarcane supplied to the producers of sugar. That does not imply that they are the only factors which could be taken into consideration, rather some more factors and considerations can weigh with the State Government which may have a bearing in fixation of the basic minimum price of the sugarcane. In this view of the matter that case does not help the petitioner rather it leads to the conclusion that the Central Government as well as State Government can take into consideration the factors other than those enumerated in clause 3 (1) which can be decisive in fixation of the minimum price. 18. In this view of the matter that case does not help the petitioner rather it leads to the conclusion that the Central Government as well as State Government can take into consideration the factors other than those enumerated in clause 3 (1) which can be decisive in fixation of the minimum price. 18. The Division Bench case of Thuru Arooraram Sugar v. D.C. Tax Officer of Madras High Court, (1988) 71 STC 444 (Mad) (supra), was a case in respect of Sales Tax in view of the provisions of Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax and Tamil Nadu Additional Sales Tax Act, 1970 and Tamilnadu Sugar Factories Control Act, 1949. Those provisions are entirely different from the provisions of the Act in question, consequently that decision is besides the point. 19. The provisions of Cl. 3 of the Control Order are to the effect that in case the occupier of the factory purchased any sugarcane from cane grower or the society, the purchaser shall within 14 days from the date of delivery of the sugarcane to the seller the price of the cane sold at the rate agreed to between the purchaser & sugarcane grower or the Society as the case may be. The clause (3A) of the Control Order provides that in case within 14 days no payment of the price of the sugarcane purchased has been made by the occupier of the factory, he shall pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum. As the object of the Act indicates that the provisions of the Act are regulatory and they are with a view to facilitate and carry forward the objects of the Control Order, the Act cannot be said to be repugnant nor the Act can be said to have been enacted by State of U.P. in respect of occupied field. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not specify or indicate anything positive sugarcane and never claimed the refund of as to how S. 17(2), (3) & (4) of the Act was the amount which was paid according to the ultra vires. The provisions of S. 17(2), (3) & (4) of the Act contain procedure about the counter affidavit also it has been stated payment of price of sugarcane purchased by that the petitioner has been paying sugarcane occupier of the factory. The provisions of S. 17(2), (3) & (4) of the Act contain procedure about the counter affidavit also it has been stated payment of price of sugarcane purchased by that the petitioner has been paying sugarcane occupier of the factory. It also provides that in case the payment is not made within 15 days from the date of purchase of sugarcane, in that event interest shall be payable at the rate of 12% per annum. The provisions of S. 17(3) provide that the rate of interest, in case the purchaser of sugarcane fails to make payment within 14 days, shall be 15% per annum. In this view of the matter also it cannot be said that the provisions of S. 17(2), (3) & (4) of the Act were ultra vires. 21. Reverting to the next submission that the price declared by the State Government is merely an advised price and does not constitute price within the meaning of Clause 3 of the Control Order, hence no interest can be claimed by the respondent No. 4 on the said amount. Suffice it so say that even in the memo of appeal before the Commissioner Gorakhpur Division Gorakhpur, it has been admitted by the petitioner in ground No. 4 that it has been making payment of minimum statutory price fixed by the Central Government. In ground No. 10 it has been stated that the Central Government has published in the Gazette of India fixed minimise price of sugarcane for the years 1976-77 till 1986-87 onwards and the payments have been made on the basis of statutory price fixed through the notifications. As the petitioner has been paying in the past the statutory minimum price fixed, it is not open for them to say that the price suggested by the State Government is just an advised price, hence the petitioner is not liable for the payment of the same. 22. Mr. Nigam, learned counsel for the respondents brought to the notice of the court the averments made in different paragraphs of the counter-affidavit. Under para 14 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner voluntarily without any pressure made the payment of the agreed price of the sugarcane and never claimed the refund of the amount which was paid according to the price agreed between the petitioners and the Cane Growers Society. Under para 14 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner voluntarily without any pressure made the payment of the agreed price of the sugarcane and never claimed the refund of the amount which was paid according to the price agreed between the petitioners and the Cane Growers Society. In paras 17 and 18 of the counter affidavit also it has been stated that petitioner has been paying sugarcane price as agreed between the petitioner and the contesting respondents on the basis of price fixed or advised by the State Government. Similarly in a number of other paragraphs I am satisfied that in the past the petitioner has been paying the advised price of the State Government. Now in any case, at this stage petitioner is estopped from raising any objection about the fixation of the price by the State Government. 23. In view of the provisions of Rule, the Arbitrator, after hearing both the sides and including the cane union and affording sufficient opportunity and after ascertaining as to what was amount due including the interest against the petitioner on the basis of entries in relevant registers and other evidence available on the record, gave his award. In respect of the amount due a number of letters were sent by the Secretary of the Society (vide Annexure 16) giving details of the amount due. Similarly there is evidence on the record indicating that the amount due including the interest and the deductions of cottage (cartage) etc. has been correctly decided and the conclusion has been correctly arrived at under the impugned award (Annexure 22) that total of amount due against the petitioner comes to Rs. 14,21,357- 29 p. for which recovery certificate has been correctly issued. 24. Similarly in appeal also, the Commissioner has considered in detail the submissions of the parties and arrived at the conclusion that the amount due has been correctly calculated. The impugned orders passed by Arbitrator and thereafter in appeal, by the Commissioner cannot be said to be erroneous nor finding could be said to be perverse. These are findings of facts based on record. 25. As the matter pertains to recovery of dues to the Cane Union in respect of sugarcane supplied to the occupier of the factory. The impugned orders passed by Arbitrator and thereafter in appeal, by the Commissioner cannot be said to be erroneous nor finding could be said to be perverse. These are findings of facts based on record. 25. As the matter pertains to recovery of dues to the Cane Union in respect of sugarcane supplied to the occupier of the factory. State of U.P. appears to be over cautious in providing the provision for Arbitrator under R. 108 so that the Arbitrator may decide as to what is the amount due, on the basis of evidence available on the record including various entries in the registers maintained by the Cane Union or the occupier of the factory. 26. In the instant case I have perused the evidence referred to on behalf of the petitioner and the respondents and I am satisfied that the findings of facts in respect of amount due as shown in the recovery certificate, including interest etc., have been correctly arrived at and those findings have been correctly affirmed in appeal under R. 118 by the Commissioner. 27. The first prayer of the petitioner was about the writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned orders but in such matters, by now it is well settled that the writ of certiorari should not be issued just as a matter of course or just merely because the same has been prayed for. Unless it has been proved that impugned orders were without jurisdiction or the findings recorded were perverse or no reasonable man can arrive at the same conclusion or the impugned orders violate principles of natural justice, no interference can be made. In the instant case the Arbitrator in his award and the Commissioner in the appellate order, have referred relevant evidence and have arrived at the correct conclusion about the amount due against the petitioner, those findings cannot be said to be perverse nor the impugned orders can be said to be without jurisdiction. 28. In view of the premises made above, I am of the view that it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petition fails and is dismissed. The interim stay dated 4-1-90 as extended from time to time is hereby vacated.