ORDER R. Gururajan, J.--These two petitions are filed by M/s. Sri. Chamundeswari Sugars Limited and M/s. India Sugars and Refineries Limited, challenging the Sugar (Price Determination for 1994-95) Order 1995, dated 27.5.1995, Annexure 'E', in so far as it relates to the price fixation in respect of Petitioners-Factories in these petitions. They also seek for a re- determination of the price of levy sugar payable to the Petitioners-factories by the Government. They are also questioning the determination of the price by the Respondents on the ground of violation of various provisions in the Control Order in these cases. 2. The facts and grounds are almost same/similar and hence a common order is passed. 3. The two Petitioners have established their factories at K.M. Doddi, Mandya District and at Chitwadgi, Hospet Town, Bellary District respectively. They have different crushing capacity of sugar cane per day and they are operating in the State of Karnataka fairly for a long time. The Essential Commodities Act of 1956 was enacted to provide, in the interest of general public for the control of the production, supply and distribution of, and trade and commerce in certain commodities. The control is available to various essential commodities including sugar and sugarcane. The Central Government, in exercise of its power under Section 3 of the Act, has issued an order known as 'Sugarcane (Control) Order 1966'. Clause 3(1) of the said order provides for fixation of minimum price of sugarcane payable by the producer of sugar for the sugarcane purchased by them. While fixing the price, they are required to take into consideration the various relevant factors in terms of the Control Order. 4. Clause 5A provides with the produce of sugar, in addition to the minimum cane price. It also provides for paying an additional cane price in accordance with the formula prescribed under the II Schedule to the Sugarcane Order. 5. The Petitioner has filed Annexure 'A', an order dated 3/5.1.1995, fixed by the Central Government fixing the minimum cane price to Rs.45 per quintal of sugarcane. In the case of India Sugars, it is fixed at Rs.46 per quintal. 6. The Respondent-Government has divided the State into various zones. The South Indian Sugar Mills Association in terms of a representation dated 11.1.1993 sought for creation of similar zones for the purpose of fixation of levy sugar price. In the case of India Sugars, it is fixed at Rs.46 per quintal. 6. The Respondent-Government has divided the State into various zones. The South Indian Sugar Mills Association in terms of a representation dated 11.1.1993 sought for creation of similar zones for the purpose of fixation of levy sugar price. Annexure 'C' is an order fixing the levy sugar price for 1994-95 season for Karnataka at Rs.676.81 in the case of Sri. Chamundeswari Sugars Limited, and in the case of India Sugars Limited, at Rs.678.81. The Central Government issued another order at Annexure 'D' fixing the price at Rs.753.20 in the case of M/s. Sri. Chamundeswari Sugars Limited and M/s. India Sugars and Refineries Limited, it was fixed at Rs.748.37. Thereafter, another Government Order was issued in terms of Annexure 'E' for the period 1994-1995. In the said order, the Central Government divided the State of Karnataka into two Zones namely 'the North West Karnataka' and 'the Rest of Karnataka'. The Respondents also have divided these two Zones as one with harvesting charges and one without harvesting charges. The price fixed for North West Karnataka is without harvesting charges. Similarly, in the case of Rest of Karnataka, two prices have been fixed one at Rs.753.82 with harvesting charges and Rs.748.75 without harvesting charges. The Petitioner states in the petition that they have filed Annexures 'F', 'G', 'H', 'J', 'K' and 'L' to contend that the division in terms of Annexure 'E' is factually and legally unsustainable. 7. The Petitioners in the petition have raised several contentions. The essential grounds are that the grouping by the Respondents is contrary to the relevant factors in terms of Clause 3(c) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. Their further case is that the division in terms of North West Karnataka Zone and Rest of Karnataka Zone is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14. They also say that the relevant factors have been omitted and irrelevant factors have been taken into consideration. 8. Notice has been issued pursuant to which the Central Government has filed a detailed Counter Statement in support of its case. 9. The Central Government states in the Counter that the Government after careful consideration of all relevant material has chosen to issue Annexure 'E'. They have also referred to the history with regard to the fixation of price. 8. Notice has been issued pursuant to which the Central Government has filed a detailed Counter Statement in support of its case. 9. The Central Government states in the Counter that the Government after careful consideration of all relevant material has chosen to issue Annexure 'E'. They have also referred to the history with regard to the fixation of price. They have referred to various case laws in support of their contention. They say that the Zones are decided on the basis of the recommendation of the Expert Bureau of Central price. They also refer to the correspondence they had with the South Indian Sugar Mills Association in this regard. They justify their stand. 10. In so far as harvesting charges and Transportation subsidy is concerned, they say that the same is made over by way of compensation by those who incur expenditure in that regard. They have annexed various documents. 11. Sri. G.V. Shantharaju, learned Senior Counsel submits that injustice has been done to the Petitioners in the matter of price fixation. The Counsel contends that arbitrariness is writ large in the case on hand. The Counsel has referred to Clause 3 to contend that the relevant factor has been left out and irrelevant factors have been taken into consideration. The additional cane price has not been considered properly in its proper perspective. He also says that the division of the State as 'North West Karnataka' and 'Rest of Karnataka' is factually and legally unsustainable. With regard to subsidy, the Counsel says that they are entitled for the same. 12. Per contra, Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Standing Counsel submits that the Central Government is perfectly justified in creating the Zones. He refers to the pleadings in the objection statement in support of his contentions. He argues that the concept of with or without harvesting charges is only a compensatory measure and the Petitioners have failed to satisfy the Respondents and therefore the Respondents are fully justified in the case on hand. 13. After hearing the Counsel, let me see as to whether a case is made out by the Petitioners. 14. Sub-clause 3(c) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act provides for certain relevant factors. 13. After hearing the Counsel, let me see as to whether a case is made out by the Petitioners. 14. Sub-clause 3(c) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act provides for certain relevant factors. The relevant factors are: 1) minimum price, if any, fixed for sugarcane by the Central Government under the Section, 2) the manufacturing cost of sugar, 3) the duty or tax, if any, paid or payable thereon, and 4) the securing of a reasonable return on capital employed in the business of manufacture of sugar. 15. In the case on hand, it is seen from the material on record that the Respondents have acted upon the recommendation of an expert body namely the Bureau of Industrial Costs and Prices. The said body determines the Industrial costs and prices. The said expert body has provided various inputs to the Government with regard to the cost factors, return on the capital etc. It was on the basis of the said Expert Committee recommendation, the Government has taken a decision to divide the State of Karnataka into two Zones, namely, 'North West Karnataka' and 'Rest of Karnataka'. In fact, the Respondents have also taken into consideration the representation of the South Indian Sugar Mills Association for Bifurcation of Karnataka into three Zones. Bramhawar unit has been excluded in terms of the recommendation of the Bureau of Industrial Costs and Price. Prices were also fixed, taking into consideration the various factors and in the light of the data made available by various Sugar Factories. In the light of these material made available on record, it cannot be said that the relevant factors have been left out and irrelevant factors have been taken into consideration. Law is now well settled that price fixation is essentially a matter for the Respondents. Unless perversity is pointed out, this Court cannot enter into that price controversy since essentially that is the job of an economist. In these circumstances, I am unable to accept the argument that the price fixed by the Respondents is unsustainable in law. In so far as non-consideration of the additional cane price is concerned, the Respondents state that there has been no mopping up of excess realisation on sale of levy free sugar. In fact, the Respondents have expressed that they have fixed prices strictly in accordance with Section 3(3)(c) read with Clause 5-A of the Control Order. In so far as non-consideration of the additional cane price is concerned, the Respondents state that there has been no mopping up of excess realisation on sale of levy free sugar. In fact, the Respondents have expressed that they have fixed prices strictly in accordance with Section 3(3)(c) read with Clause 5-A of the Control Order. In the light of a detailed affidavit and in the light of the recommendation of the Bureau of Industrial Costs and prices, I am not inclined to accept the arguments of the Petitioner that this Court has to interfere in these matters. In fact, in somewhat identical circumstances, the Supreme Court has upheld the Control Order in the case of Modi Industries Limited and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. in 1999 (9) SCC 245 . Noting the 'no mopping of' excess realisation on levy free sugar while fixing the price. 16. It is also relevant to note at this stage, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anakapalle Co-op. Agrl. and Industrial Society Ltd., etc. etc. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1973 SC 734 The Supreme Court has noticed the impracticability of fixing the price for cancellation in the whole Country in the said judgment. The Supreme Court has also upheld the Zonal system for the purpose of fixation of costs. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. and another Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1990 SC 1277 has ruled as under: The price of sugar must be determined by the Central Government having regard to the factors mentioned in Clauses (a) to (d) of Sub-section (3-C). This is done with reference to the industry as a whole and not with reference to any individual seller. In contradistinction to the 'price of sugar', the 'amount' is calculated with reference to the particular seller. The Central Government is authorised to determine different prices for different areas or for different factories or for different kinds of sugar. 17. In the said case, the Supreme Court has noticed the reasonableness of the order made by the Government in exercise of its power under Sub-Section 3C. The Central Government is authorised to determine different prices for different areas or for different factories or for different kinds of sugar. 17. In the said case, the Supreme Court has noticed the reasonableness of the order made by the Government in exercise of its power under Sub-Section 3C. The reasonableness of the order made by the Government in exercise of its power is to be tested by asking the question whether or not the matters mentioned in the Clauses (a) to (d) have been generally considered by the Government in making its estimate of the price. The Supreme Court has also cautioned that the Court is not strictly scrutinize the extent to which those matters or any other matters have been taken into account. The Court has ruled that if there is sufficient compliance with the Sub-section, the same cannot be set aside by a Court of law. In the case on hand, as I mentioned earlier, it cannot be said that any irrelevant consideration has been taken into consideration. More over, most of the sugar factories have accepted in terms of Annexure 'E'. Taking into consideration the scope of the Judicial review, the law and the subject and the material on record, it is not possible for this Court to set aside Annexure 'E' with regard to the price fixation. 18. The Petitioners contention of the price fixation in Rest of Karnataka and North West Karnataka being arbitrary cannot be accepted in the light of the above discussion. 19. The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 36543 of 1995 makes grievance that at least inclusion of the Petitioner in the Zone of Rest of Karnataka without harvesting charges requires my consideration. 20. Sri. G.V. Shantharaju, learned Senior Counsel states that the Petitioner did include expenses towards transport charges/transport subsidy. He refers to the Annexure filed in this petition by the Petitioner at Annexure-R3 in support of his case. 21. Per contra, Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel submits that the object of paying this harvesting charges is only by way of compensation. Unless factually the Petitioners are able to demonstrate the same, it is not possible for the Petitioners to have any direction at the hands of this Court. It is relevant to note that the object of the division of the Zones with or without harvesting charges. Unless factually the Petitioners are able to demonstrate the same, it is not possible for the Petitioners to have any direction at the hands of this Court. It is relevant to note that the object of the division of the Zones with or without harvesting charges. The Respondents have admitted that the BICP in its report states that the harvesting charges may be given as an additional item of costs to only such factories that incur it after identifying them. The Respondents have stated that all the Sugar Factories in Karnataka were requested to furnish an affidavit on transportation and harvesting charges. 17 Sugar Factories furnish requisite information in terms of the averments at para 24. In so far as the Petitioner Sri. Chamundeshwari Sugars Limited, is concerned, they have stated in Annexure-R3 reading as under: We refer to your letter cited and as desired enclose herewith an affidavit duly Notarised, showing amount incurred by us on the transportation charges for the years 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1994-94 for your kind information and necessary further action. 22. In so far as the other Petitioner is concerned, he states that no expenses have been incurred towards harvesting charges and transportation charges in terms of Annexure-R3. In the light of the Counter affidavit and in the absence of any expenditure being incurred by the India Sugars Limited, this Court cannot, notwithstanding the non-incurring expenditure of harvesting charges, grant the prayer of the Petitioner. Therefore, the request for harvesting charges in respect of India Sugar is rejected in the light of the Counter affidavit and in the light of Annexure-R3. 23. In so far as Sri. Chamundeshwari Sugars Limited, is concerned, as mentioned earlier, they have provided the payment towards transport subsidy in terms of Annexure-R3. In these circumstances, not-withstanding the opposition of Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior Counsel, I deem it proper that justice is to be done to Sri. Chamundeshwari Sugars Limited, by way of remand for reconsideration, particularly in the light of the factual assertion in the affidavit of the Petitioner read in the light of Annexure-R3. Therefore, I deem it proper to issue a direction to the Central Government only with regard to Sri. Chamundeshwari Sugars Limited, to reconsider the grouping in non-harvesting group zone and take a decision in the matter. Therefore, I deem it proper to issue a direction to the Central Government only with regard to Sri. Chamundeshwari Sugars Limited, to reconsider the grouping in non-harvesting group zone and take a decision in the matter. The Petitioner is given four weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to provide all additional material in the light of Annexure-R3 to the Central Government. The Central Government is directed to determine the factum of clubbing Sri. Chamundeshwari Sugars Limited, in the zone of 'with harvesting charges' after satisfying itself with regard to the factual details in the light of the materials to be made available to the Government. Time for compliance is 12 weeks thereafter. 24. In the result, the following order is passed: Petitions are dismissed. However, in the case of Sri. Chamundeshwari Sugars Limited, matter is remitted for reconsideration in terms of the directions made in the course of this order. Parties to bear their respective costs.