M. KATJU AND RAKESH TIWARI, JJ. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. ( 2 ) THE respondents may file counter-affidavit within 3 weeks. List thereafter. ( 3 ) THE petitioners have prayed that the State Government be restrained from announcing any state Advised Cane Price for fixing the Statutory Minimum Cane Price. ( 4 ) IT has been held by a Division Bench of this Court in C. M. W. P. No. 36889 of 1996, West U. P. Sugar Mills Association and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors. , decided on 11. 12. 1996, copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, that the State Advised Cane Price is illegal for two reasons (I) the minimum cane price can only be fixed by the Central Government as is evident from Clause 3 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 and not by any other authority and (2) there is no statutory provision permitting the State Government to fix the State Advised Cane price. ( 5 ) AGAINST the aforesaid judgment, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court and the supreme Court passed an interim order dated 22. 1. 1997, copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In this order of the Supreme Court, it was held that there is no statutory basis for the state Government for fixing the State Advised Cane Price. ( 6 ) WE are, therefore, surprised that the State Government is persisting in flagrantly flouting the judgment of this Court dated 11. 12. 1996 passed in the aforesaid writ petition as well as the order of the Supreme Court dated 22. 1. 1997. ( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents has relied upon certain decisions of this Court and the supreme Court but in those decisions, the view taken by this Court In West U. P. Sugar Mills association and Ors. (supra) has not been examined, namely, whether there is any statutory basis of fixing the State Advised Cane Price and whether It is only the Central Government which can fix the minimum cane price under Clause 3 of the U. P. Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966. Hence the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are clearly distinguishable. Moreover, the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2086 of 1997, decided on 1. 2. Hence the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents are clearly distinguishable. Moreover, the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2086 of 1997, decided on 1. 2. 1999, has been stayed by the Supreme Court in S. L. P. No. 3281 of 1999, West U. P. Sugar Mills association v. V. M. Singh and Ors. vide order dated 22. 3. 1999. ( 8 ) IT appears that yesterday, an order was passed by the State Government fixing the State advised Cane Price by press release, dated 12. 11. 2002. We, therefore, stay the operation of the order, dated 12. 11. 2002, fixing the State Advised Cane Price and we direct the State Government to desist from fixing the State Advised Cane Price till further orders in view of the Judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 36889 of 1996 and the order of the Supreme Court dated 22. 1. 1997. .