JUDGMENT S.K. Dhaon, J. - In this bunch of petitions the petitioners carry on the business of production of sugar from crushing sugarcane by vacuum pan process. They are really aggrieved by clause 3 of the notification dated 28th March, 1985, purported to have been issued by the Central Government under Section 3 (3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The controversy in these petitions being common, they were heard together and are, therefore, being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. Sugar is an "essential commodity" within the meaning and for the purposes of the Act. It is a totally controlled commodity. The Central Government has adopted a police of partial control of sugar produced by the sugar factories in India where under the sugar factories are required to sell certain part of their sugar production in a particular year known as the "levy sugar" as per monthly release orders issued by the Central Government in favour of its nominees. The production remaining after the "levy sugar" is known as the "free sugar". The percentage of levy and free sugar to be sold or supplied are being fixed by the Central Government at the start of the crushing season, by announcing the sugar policy for the year. In this bunch the crushing season 1984-85 is involved. For this year the percentage fixed for levy sugar and free sugar is 65 percent and 35 percent respectively. 3. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the Act the Central Government made the Levy Sugar Supply and (Control) Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order of 1979). Paragraph 2 of the said Order inter alia authorises the Central Government to issue orders from time to time directing any producer to supply "levy sugar" to such persons or organisations or to such State Governments as may be specified in the order and at a price not exceeding the price determined under Section 3 (3C) of the Act. On 31st January, 1985, the Central Government, in the purported exercise of powers under Section 3 (3C) of the Act, by an order introduced the Sugar (Price Determination for 1984-85 Production) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1985). Under paragraph 2 of the said Order the Central Government fixed the price of sugar produced in 1984-85 season. On 31st January, 1985, the Central Government, in the purported exercise of powers under Section 3 (3C) of the Act, by an order introduced the Sugar (Price Determination for 1984-85 Production) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Order of 1985). Under paragraph 2 of the said Order the Central Government fixed the price of sugar produced in 1984-85 season. For the purposes of the Order the Central Government divided the country into 15 zones. In this State 3 zones were created, namely, Central East and West: In this bunch 5 sugar factories are involved. They are : (1) Mawana Sugar Works, (2) Simbhaoli Sugar Mills Limited, (3) Saraya Sugar Mills Limited, (4) Girnar Pratisthan Limited and (5) Kesar Sugar Works Limited. The first two fall in the West Zone, the second 2 in the East Zone and the last in the Central Zone. Immediately after the Order of 1985, the Central Government, it appears, commenced issuing orders to the aforementioned 5 factories in accordance with the Control Order of 1979. On 28th March, 1985, the Central Government issued another order in the purported exercise of powers under Section 3 (3C) of the Act amending the Order of 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Amending Order). (This was to come into effect from 1st April, 1985). By the Amending Order the Central Government made substantial increase in the prices of the various grades of "levy sugar." Paragraph 3 of this Order has given rise to these petitions. For the sake of brevity this paragraph shall be hereinafter called as "the offending paragraph." We shall refer to it a little later. 4. The prices of different grades of sugar of West Zone were fixed, inter alia, for the standard grade S-30 at Rs. 300-81 perquintal in Schedule I and Rs. 300-71 in Schedule II. By the Amending Order the Central Government fixed a price of 363.47 for the standard S-30 grade sugar as mentioned in Schedule I. A price of Rs. 362.46 for the standard S-30 grade of sugar was fixed as mentioned in Schedule II. Thus there was an increase of Rs. 62. 66 per quintal in the price of standard S-30 grade of sugar in Schedule I and an increase of Rs. 61.75 per quintal for the standard S-30 grade of sugar in Schedule II. 362.46 for the standard S-30 grade of sugar was fixed as mentioned in Schedule II. Thus there was an increase of Rs. 62. 66 per quintal in the price of standard S-30 grade of sugar in Schedule I and an increase of Rs. 61.75 per quintal for the standard S-30 grade of sugar in Schedule II. Increases on the same patern were made in the prices of "levy sugar" in both the Schedules in the East as well as Central Zones. 5. On 1st February, 1985, a communication was issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of India to all sugar factories in India. The recitals in this communication are these. By the Order of 1985 the ex-factory prices of levy sugar had been fixed to facilitate timely release of levy sugar out of the production of the current season. In view of the changing parameters that go to determine the levy price, which are under examination, the Order of 1985 is expected to be superseded, soon by the announcement of fresh levy prices. At the time the new levy prices are announced, the Government will endeavour to adjust, in respect of the quantity of levy sugar delivered by the mills before such revision, the difference, if any, between those prices and the prices just notified. 6. Separate counter-affidavits have been filed in the 5 petitions. The patera and contents of all these affidavits are substantially the same. We are, therefore, making use of the material contained in Writ Petition No. 7369 of 1985. In this writ petition a counter-affidavit has been filed by Sri R.K. Chhabra, an Under Secretary, Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies (Department of Food) Government of India. In paragraphs 39 and 40 of the affidavit it is admitted that the prices notified in the Order of 1985 were only a repetition of the prices notified in the previous year, i.e. 1983-84. However, the sugar factories had been intimated that the Government will endeavour to make adjustment in respect of "levy sugar" delivered by the mills while revising the prices. Such an adjustment was made issuing the Amending Order. In paragraph 40 a chart is given giving in detail the break up of the new levy prices fixed. At SI. However, the sugar factories had been intimated that the Government will endeavour to make adjustment in respect of "levy sugar" delivered by the mills while revising the prices. Such an adjustment was made issuing the Amending Order. In paragraph 40 a chart is given giving in detail the break up of the new levy prices fixed. At SI. No. 14 there is an item which reads ; "Adjustment for releases in February-March 1985 at prices notified on 31-1-1985." Against this serial number a figure of Rs. 9-79 is mentioned. It is the common case of the parties that by this figure a sum of Rs. 9.79 per quintal is intended. In the rejoinder-affidavit filed by Sri P. V. Bakre, the Deputy Manager (Legal), it is, inter alia, stated that the Government had not made a fair adjustment in the levy sugar prices fixed for the 1984-85 season by the Amending Order. Even if it is assumed that the Government had allowed a compensation element of Rs. 9.79 per quintal in the prices fixed on 28th March, 1985, this compensation element is wholly inadequate and does not fully compensate the petitioners and, in fact, most of the factories in the petitioners' zone have suffered loss for delivering sugar at the old uneconomical price fixed on 31st January, 1985. At the end of the paragraph a chart is given. This chart may be extracted : Quantity of levy sugar released prior to 28th March, 1985. = 1,05,760 qtls. Shortfall in the price fixed on 31-1-85. Rs. 52.87/qtl Loss suffered on releases prior to 28-3-85 = 1,05,760 qtls. times 52.87. Rs. 55,91,520/- Compensation element in price fixed on 28-3-85 Rs. 9.79/qtl Balance of levy sugar to be delivered at the price fixed on 28-3-85. Rs. 3,79,510 qtls. Excess realisation on balance stocks Rs. 37,15,400/- Therefore net loss Rs. 18,76,130/ 7. In the fore-front apparently a very simple argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioners and that is that the compensation element in the prices, viz. Rs. 9.79 per quintal is rediculously low and has, therefore, resulted in causing loss to the petitioners. The power, therefore, has been arbitrarily exercised. The argument, though plausible at the first blush, cannot bear a deeper scrutiny. Rs. 9.79 per quintal is rediculously low and has, therefore, resulted in causing loss to the petitioners. The power, therefore, has been arbitrarily exercised. The argument, though plausible at the first blush, cannot bear a deeper scrutiny. It is to be remembered that the Order of 1985 and the Amending Order form part of the same process, namely, the fixation of price of "levy sugar" for the season 1984-85. The two, therefore, have got to be read together. They cannot be separated in the water-tight compartments. In Section 3 (3C) of the Act the Central Government, while determining the prices of "levy sugar" is enjoined to have regard to certain matters. One of them being the securing of a reasonable return on the capital employed in the business of manufacturing sugar. Under this provision the Central Government is also authorised to determine different prices from time to time for different areas or for different factories or for different kinds of sugar. Profit from the sale of "levy sugar" alone is not guaranteed to any factory under Section 3 (3C) of the Act. In consideration (d) focus is not only on the return from the sale of levy sugar; but the emphasis is on the reasonable return on the capital employed. Therefore, the profit, which a sugar factory may earn during a particular crushing season from the sale of "free sugar" too has to be taken into account. Again, when the price of "levy sugar" is being fixed for different areas of zones the profit of loss of an individual sugar factory is not germane or relevant. The Over-all picture of all the sugar factories in a particular area or zone is to be kept in view. The problem of an individual factory may be peculiar and different from the general problems of the other factories in an area or zone. To put it differently an individual factory in a particular area or zone may be suffering losses on account of certain exigencies which may not be prevalent generally in the other factories in the same zone. 8. To put it differently an individual factory in a particular area or zone may be suffering losses on account of certain exigencies which may not be prevalent generally in the other factories in the same zone. 8. In Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills v. Union of India, AIR 1973 SC 537 it is held: that the last words of Section 3 (3C) of the Act empower the Central Government to determine the prices either from time to time or for different areas, which means that it may determine zonal price or regional prices or price for different kinds or grades of sugar. A fair price has to be determined in respect of the entire produce, ensuring to the factories a reasonable return on the capital employed in the business of manufacturing sugar; but this does not mean that the Government can fix any arbitrary price or a price fixed on extraneous considerations such that it does not secure a reasonable return on the capital employed in the industry. 9. In M/s Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited v. Union of India, 1990 (1) Judgments Today 462 the Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier decisions in Anakapalie's case 1973 (2) SCR 882 and Panipat's case (supra). Their Lordships were dealing with the case of fixation of price under Section 3 (3C) of the Act. Their Lordships have held that judicial review is not concerned with the matter of economic policy. The Court does not substitute its judgment for that of the legislature of its agents as to matter within the province of either, The Court does not supplant the "feel of the export" by its own views. Price fixation is not within the province of the courts. Judicial function in respect of such matters is exhausted when there is found to be a rational basis for the conclusion reached by the concerned authority. 10. In the writ petitions relating to the Mawana Sugar Mills and , Sibhaoli Sugar Mills there is no averment at all that the two mills will 'rsufler pecuniary loss on account of the low percentage of the compensation allowed by the Amending Order even after taking into account the sale proceeds of the free sugar crushed during the relevant season. In the writ petitions relating to the Mawana Sugar Mills and , Sibhaoli Sugar Mills there is no averment at all that the two mills will 'rsufler pecuniary loss on account of the low percentage of the compensation allowed by the Amending Order even after taking into account the sale proceeds of the free sugar crushed during the relevant season. The burden of the song in the two petitions is that losses will be incurred by the sale of "levy sugar" on the basis of the prices fixed by the Order of 1985. 11. In the writ petition relating to the Saraya Sugar Mills, which falls in the East Zone, some averments are to be found in paragraph 24. The averments made are these. During the current sugar year, i.e. 1984-85 the petitioner factory at Sardarnagar has been put to a huge loss on account of shortage of sugarcane in the region and also on account of the several breakdowns that occurred in the petitioner factory during the crushing season. Due to the aforesaid reasons the production in the petitioner factory at Sardarnagar is also almost 50% lower than that in the previous year, resulting in a large increase in the cost of production of sugar and huge losses to the petitioner company running into almost a crore. The cost of production for the petitioner's factory for 1984-85 has worked out to Rs. 473-00 per quintal. On the price of levy sugar fixed by the Government, the petitioner would suffer a loss of Rs. 82.88 lacs even if the free sale sugar realisations are taken to as high as Rs. 500/- per quintal. 12. It is true that in the counter-affidavit filed in this petition there is no denial of the aforementioned averments. However, even if the averments are taken to he true the petitioner's case is not advanced. Ordinarily and in the normal course profit should have been made by the Saraya Sugar Mills and it should not have incurred loss. Apparently, the reasons given for incurring the losses are relatable to mismanagement and lack of efficiency. The criterion of the "manufacturing cost of sugar" has to be read and applied in broad and liberal manner. Ordinarily and in the normal course profit should have been made by the Saraya Sugar Mills and it should not have incurred loss. Apparently, the reasons given for incurring the losses are relatable to mismanagement and lack of efficiency. The criterion of the "manufacturing cost of sugar" has to be read and applied in broad and liberal manner. As owner of sugar factory, who cannot make arrangements for the raw material, who cannot keep his workmen satisfied and who runs his factory and establishment for a very short duration cannot be allowed to make a grievance against the fixation of the price in the purported exercise of powers under section 3 (3C) of the Act on the excuse that such a price does not take note of the manufacturing cost of sugar in his establishment. 13. In the writ petition concerning the Girnar Pratisthan Limited in paragraph 27 the averments are these. During the sugar year 1984-85 the factory at Captainganj had suffered a huge loss mainly on account of acute shortage of sugarcane in the region and as a result of several breakdowns. The production in the factory was almost 40 per cent lower than that of the previous year thereby sharply increasing the cost of production of sugar and resulting in huge loss to the company of over rupees fifty lakhs. It is significant that no particulars have been given as to what would be the loss or profit if the proceeds of the "free sugar" produced during the relevant period is taken into account. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Central Government by Sri R.K. Chhabra, in paragraph 50, it is denied that the factory suffered losses as alleged in paragraph 27 of the petition. For the current 1984-85 season the factory started production on 23rd November, 1984 and after producing 18075.0 tonnes of sugar it stopped crushing on 5th March, 1985. In the rejoinder-affidavit filed on behalf of the factory these averments made in the counter-affidavit have not been denied. On the contrary, it is emphasised that on account of the fixation of the price of "levy sugar" the company has suffered a loss. It is noteworthy that the petitioners, who have alleged financial loss, have not cared to file a copy of the balance-sheet of their respective factories. On the contrary, it is emphasised that on account of the fixation of the price of "levy sugar" the company has suffered a loss. It is noteworthy that the petitioners, who have alleged financial loss, have not cared to file a copy of the balance-sheet of their respective factories. We have, therefore, no hesitation in repelling the submissions that in the Amending Order a sum of Rs. 9.79 per quintal has been arbitrarily fixed towards adjustment for release of "levy sugar" for the months of February and March, 1985. 14. The offending paragraph may now be extracted : "3. Saving. Nothing contained in this Order shall affect any direction issued under clause 2 of the levy sugar supply (Control) Order, 1979, before the date of publication of this Order in the official Gazette, and the producer shall be entitled for the undelivered' quantity of sugar against the aforesaid direction to such price as provided in the Sugar (Price Determination for 1984-85 Production) Order, 1985, dated the 31st January, 1985 : Provided that the Central Government shall, for the purpose of completing the delivery or despatch of the entire quantity of levy sugar as required by any of the said directions, have the power to extend the period of validity specified in any such direction." 15. The submission is that the Central Government has acted arbitrarily in depriving the producers of sugar of the benefit of the enhanced prices on different grades of "levy sugar" as fixed by the Amending Order with respect to that quantity of "levy sugar" which had remained undelivered even though directions had been issued by the Central Government to supply "levy sugar" under paragraph 2 of the Control Order of 1979 prior to 1st April, 1985. In other words, the contention is that the petitioners are under the law entitled to realise the price as fixed by the Amending Order and as prevalent on the date of actual delivery of the "levy sugar" 16. Section 3 (2) (f) of the Act enables the Central Government to make an order requiring any person engaged in the production of any essential commodity to sell the whole or a specified part of the quantity produced by him to the Government or to its nominee. It is an order for a compulsory sale. Section 3 (2) (f) of the Act enables the Central Government to make an order requiring any person engaged in the production of any essential commodity to sell the whole or a specified part of the quantity produced by him to the Government or to its nominee. It is an order for a compulsory sale. Some price has to be paid for the commodity purchased in pursuance of an order passed under section 3 (2) (f) The ascertainment of price is provided for in Section 3 (3C). The Control Order of 1979, in paragraph 2, emphasises that the Central Government may, from time to -I time by order issue directions to any producer to supply "levy sugar" of such type or grade and from such place of manufacture or storage to such person or organisation or State Governments as may be specified by order and at a price not exceeding the price determined under section 3 (3C) of the Act. From a combined reading of the provisions of Section 3 (2) (f) of the Act and paragraph 2 of the Control Order of 1979 it is crystal clear that the price under section 3 (3C) has to be fixed first before an order directing the supply of "levy sugar" is issued under paragraph 2 of the Control Order of 1979. Therefore, the condition precedent to the issue of an order or direction to any producer to supply "levy sugar" is the fixation of price under section 3 (3C). It is also clear that the order or direction as contemplated in paragraph 2 must specify the price at which the supply has to be made by the producer. The further condition is that the price specified in the order or direction shall not exceed the price fixed under section 3 (3C). Therefore, it is implicit that the price as fixed in the order or direction issued under paragraph 2 cannot be varied so as to exceed the price already fixed under section 3 (3C). It is immaterial whether the supply of the "levy sugar" in pursuance of the order/direction issued under paragraph 2 is made on a subsequent date. It is also immaterial that a higher price has been fixed in the purported exercise of powers under section 3 (3C) before the actual supply is made by a producer. It is immaterial whether the supply of the "levy sugar" in pursuance of the order/direction issued under paragraph 2 is made on a subsequent date. It is also immaterial that a higher price has been fixed in the purported exercise of powers under section 3 (3C) before the actual supply is made by a producer. It cannot be disputed that such a power of fixing a higher price under section 3 (3C) exists in the Central Government for the provisions of Section 3 (3C) itself lays down that such a power can be exercised from time to time, which means that such a power can be exercised more than once during a particular sugar year. It follows that the petitioners were under a legal obligation to supply "levy sugar" on the basis of the price fixed in the orders or directions issued prior to 1st April, 1985, and under the law they are not entitled to charge a price higher than the one fixed under section 3 (3C) even though an enhanced price had come into existence with effect from 1st April, 1985. A similar view has been taken by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited v. Union of India, AIR 1970 Delhi 257. 17. It is averred that during the months January, February and March, 1985, directions/orders were issued under paragraph 2 of the Control Order of 1979 to factories, other than those involved in these petitions but situated in the same zone, for supply "levy sugar" In all those cases generally the directions/orders were confined to 42 percent of the sugar earmarked as "levy sugar" but in the cases of some of one petitioners the directions/orders extended to 48 percent or even more. Such actions were not only discriminatory but were also arbitrary and, therefore, hit by Article 14 of the Constitution. In Writ Petition No. 7367 of 1985, in paragraph 44 of the counter-affidavit the averments are these. Under the present policy of partial control system the State Government/Union Territories are allotted a monthly levy quota for distribution through the public distribution system. The share of each factory in the monthly release is worked out on the basis of uniform percentage of the levy entitlement of production upto a particular date prior to release. Under the present policy of partial control system the State Government/Union Territories are allotted a monthly levy quota for distribution through the public distribution system. The share of each factory in the monthly release is worked out on the basis of uniform percentage of the levy entitlement of production upto a particular date prior to release. Each factory is released its due share each month and the quantity so worked out is allotted in favour of the State/Government/Food Corporation of India for delivery against the quota of the State Government. In addition to the above, levy sugar is also allotted in favour of Army Purchase Organisation. The allotment orders are issued in favour of Army Purchase Organisation to the factories over and above their share in the monthly release and the quantity so allotted is adjusted at the end of the season. Thus the quantity allotted for Army Purchase Organisation is an additional allotment to the factories and this procedure, has been in vague for a considerable time The petitioner has overlooked the release of 1,090 tonnes of "levy sugar" in factory of the Army Purchase Organisation on 22nd March, 1985. with respect to the other petitioners similar averments have been made and it has been emphasised that they too were directed to supply "levy sugar" to the Army Purchase Organisation. It is, thus, clear that according to the counter-affidavit the petitioners stood on a footing different from the owners of those factories who had been generally directed to supply only 42 percent of their produce earmarked as "levy sugar". 18. Paragraph 2 of the Control Order of 1979 does not prohibit the Central Government from issuing directions/orders for the supply of "levy sugar" beyond a certain limit within a specified period. Therefore, it is open to the Central Government to direct the supply of such quantity of "levy sugar" in a particular month or within a particular period as the exigencies of the situation may require, indeed, it is not the case of the petitioners that the authority concerned exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing the directions/ orders. Once a direction or order is issued under paragraph 2 a producer is under a legal obligation to comply with the same. Failure to do so will render him to penal consequences The excess supply, if any, has taken place as a result of a bona fide exercise of a statutory power. Once a direction or order is issued under paragraph 2 a producer is under a legal obligation to comply with the same. Failure to do so will render him to penal consequences The excess supply, if any, has taken place as a result of a bona fide exercise of a statutory power. No allegation of malafide or bias as against the officer issuing the direction or order has been made. Therefore, the conclusion is inevitable that the excess supply, if any, is an incidence of the direction or order issued by the Central Government under paragraph 2. In such a situation the question of an invidious or hostile discrimination does not arise. 19. The last submission is that in view of the so-called undertaking given by and on behalf of the Central Government as contained in the communication dated 1st February, 1985, of the Deputy Secretary, the contents of which have already been referred to above, the Central Government was estopped from adjusting only Rs. 9.79 per quintal for leases in February and March, 1985. In other words, the argument is that the prices as enforced with effect from 1st April, 1985, should have been made applicable from 31st January, 1985. A close reading of the aforementioned communication of the under Secretary will show that, in fact, no categorical promise had been made in that communication. The crucial words used are "the Government will endeavour to adjust". We have seen from the counter--affidavit that an adjustment had been made while issuing the Amending Order. It is a different matter as to whether the petitioners feel satisfied with such an adjustment or not. We have already expressed our views on the adequacy of the amount fixed towards such an adjustment. In our view, the Central Government neither expressly nor by implication has in the communication dated 1st February, 1985, undertaken to give a retrospective effect to the fresh levy price to be announced in future The material on record, therefore, fails short of the requirements of the ingredients constituting an estoppel. 20. We have already emphasised that Section 3 (2) (f) of the Act postulates a compulsory sale. 20. We have already emphasised that Section 3 (2) (f) of the Act postulates a compulsory sale. Petitioners had no option but to supply levy sugar the moment directions/orders were issued under paragraph 2 of the Control Order of 1979 and they had to do so on the price prevalent on the date of the issue of the order/direction and as fixed under section 3 (3C). Therefore, the question of the petitioners' acting upon the alleged representation of the Central Government as contained in the communication dated 1st February, 1985 and doing so to their detriment could not and did not arise. Petitioners, therefore, cannot derive any advantage from the doctrine of estoppel. 21. This Court has passed an interim order on 15th July, 1985, to the following effect : "We, accordingly, direct that Clause 3 of the 1985 Order dated 28th March, 1985, shall not apply so far as the petitioners are concerned. The petitioners shall keep a separate account of realisations made in respect of deliveries of sugar in terms of release orders issued prior to 28th March, 1985. The petitioners shall submit monthly accounts of parties in whose favour release orders have been made on excess realisations which may be subject to the orders passed by this Court. It is made clear that the petitioners shall be entitled to receive price on despatches made on or after 1st April, 1985 on the basis of the notification 28th March, 1985". We have not accepted any of the contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, these petitions have to fail. It is implicit in the order of this Court dated 15th July, 1985 and it was made known to the petitioners that they will have to refund the amount realised by them in pursuance of the aforequoted interim order. The petitioners have retained the amounts realised by them for all these years, although they were not entitled to do so. They have, therefore, been unjustly enriched during these years. They are, therefore, to be directed not only to refund the amounts realised by them in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 15th July, 1985, but also pay interest thereon. They have, therefore, been unjustly enriched during these years. They are, therefore, to be directed not only to refund the amounts realised by them in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 15th July, 1985, but also pay interest thereon. We, accordingly, direct each of the petitioners to refund the amounts realised by them in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 15th July, 1985, together with an interest calculated at the rate of 12 percent per annum from the date of receipt of the amounts The amounts together with the interest thereon shall be deposited by the petitioners with the Secretary Food and Civil Supplies (Department of Food) Government of India, New Delhi within a period of one month from the date of this order. It will be open to the Secretary to disburse the amount so deposited in accordance with law. 22. These petitions have no substance. They are dismissed with costs.