(1) DELAY condoned. (2) LEAVE granted. (3) THE fixation of minimum price of levy sugar for the year 1982-83 has already been upheld by this Court in Transferred Case (C) No. 9 of 1990, M/s. Modi Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, decided on 20/2/1996. The correctness of this decision came to be questioned before a Three Judge Bench of this Court in Shri Malaprabha Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. v. Union of India & anr., (1997) 10 SCC 216 , but it was not accepted and the Court made the following observations : "THE order that was passed by this Court on 20-2-1996 in Transferred Case (C) No. 9/1990 was in respect of levy sugar price for the year 1982-83 and, therefore, it cannot have any bearing on the fixation of price of levy sugar for the year 1975-76 to 1979- 80. Moreover, this Court, while passing the said order, has clearly stated that"......... this matter is not covered by the decision of this Court in Shri Malaprabha Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd. v. Union of India, (1994 AIR SCW 734 : AIR 1994 SC 1311 ). Even if the Government has omitted to take into consideration one favourable element, namely, wopping up of excess realisation it cannot justify its omission to take into consideration another relevant element which is favourable to the producer of Sugar". (4) A two Judge Bench of this Court in Transferred Case (C) Nos. 15-17/1993 - Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. & anr. etc. etc. v. Union of India & Ors. decided on 19/8/1998, followed the decision of this Court in Transferred Case (C) No. 9/1990. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that, since it was admitted by the Union of India in the affidavit filed before the Allahabad High Court that the factors set out in Clause 5A of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1965 were not taken into consideration, the fixation of price was bad. (5) IT may be pointed out that in Bharat Sugar Mills case (supra), the Court had taken into consideration the additional affidavit dated 11/6/1998 filed by Mr. Surendra Kumar, Joint Secretary, Government of India, setting out the manner in which minimum price for levy sugar for the year 1982- 83 had been determined and after taking into consideration that affidavit, the Court upheld the fixation of price. Surendra Kumar, Joint Secretary, Government of India, setting out the manner in which minimum price for levy sugar for the year 1982- 83 had been determined and after taking into consideration that affidavit, the Court upheld the fixation of price. (6) IN view of the above, since in this case also it is the price for the year 1982-83 which is involved, as also in view of the further that the price fixation has already been upheld in the three decisions of this Court, we are not prepared to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the fixation of minimum price for levy sugar for the year 1982-83 was not correctly fixed. (7) FOR the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Allahabad High Court dated 17/3/1998 is set aside. The Writ Petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.