JUDGMENT By the Court.—These applications filed by respondents since make similar prayers, therefore they are heard together with the consent of learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the parties. These applications are now decided by this order. 2. By means of present application, learned Standing Counsel has prayed for the following relief : “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the application may kindly be allowed and the writ petition may kindly be dismissed in view of the judgment dated 7.7.2008 passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8324 (MB) of 2007 Modi Sugar Mills and another v. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2008(7) ADJ 208 (DB)(LB) connected writ petitions, otherwise the applicant/respondent shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.” 3. Along with the affidavit filed in support of the application, learned Standing Counsel has also filed copy of the judgment and order dated 7th July, 2008 passed by Lucknow Bench of this Court in Modi Sugar Mills and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(7) ADJ 208 (DB)(LB) which shall hereinafter referred to as ‘Modi Sugar Mills’, wherein the Division Bench has held that “keeping in mind the exercise done by the State Government, the factors taken into consideration by it and the findings recorded by us on the pleas raised by the parties and for the reason that the SAP is the remunerative price of the sugarcane for payment to the cane growers, which is bound to be higher than the SMP, the SAP so fixed does not appear to be unreasonable so as to be interfered by the Court. We thus uphold the SAP fixed for various varieties of sugarcane for the crushing season 2007-08. We, therefore, direct that henceforth, the petitioners shall pay the SAP at the price determined by the State Government and the arrears of difference of the SAP as against the payment made in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, shall also be paid to the cane growers within a maximum period of two months.” 4. We, therefore, direct that henceforth, the petitioners shall pay the SAP at the price determined by the State Government and the arrears of difference of the SAP as against the payment made in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, shall also be paid to the cane growers within a maximum period of two months.” 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the State Government while fixing the SAP for the year 2007-08 has not taken into consideration of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Basti Sugar Mills and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(1) ADJ 36 (DB) which shall hereinafter referred to as ‘Basti Sugar Mills’ by Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No. 33288 of 2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioners relied upon the directions issued by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Basti Sugar Mills (supra), which is reproduced below : “(a) Order impugned fixing SAP for crushing season 2006-07 and Circular/Notification etc. in connection thereto stands quashed. (b) Consequently, the State will discharge the essential legislative function in its true sense by reassessing the SAP for the crushing season 2006-07 in consultation with the respective representatives of the cane growers, sugar producing factories, appropriate executives of the union and the State inclusive of representative of Cost Accounting Branch of the Union and the State, Commission of Agricultural Costs and Prices, National Sugar Institute, Kanpur, any other person or institute required for the purpose. (c) Calling of the representatives of the Union of India for sharing their experience regarding fixing the price and over all assessment, will not be treated to be interference with the existence of the power and authority of the State. (d) In case the legislature desires and wants to apply its discretion to form a committee of experts and affected persons to make a report to work upon it and further wants that such committee can be formed under the chairmanship of a retired High Court or Supreme Court Judge to maintain absolute independency, they are at liberty to do so. (e) In either of cases, the decision should be backed by reasons giving adequate outlines of norms, criteria or guidelines to incorporate in the Act/Rules/Circular so that dispute in seriatim can be resolved for all time and delay in payments in the scheduled price of sugarcane can be avoided. (f) Due to paucity of time, only for the crushing season 2006-07 norms, criteria or guidelines will be indicated in the decision having a binding effect upon the parties irrespective of making any formal amendment/circulation etc as prescribed above, and the parties will act upon the communication of the decision. (g) The Court is constrained to fix the period of three months for the purpose of entire exercise by the State, as directed hereinabove, due to intervention of the subsequent crushing season. (h) Subject to final decision and communication thereof, payment of SAP, in case of shortfall or adjustment/recovery in case of over payment by the sugar producing factories, will be given effect, therefore, question of coercive action, if any will arise at that juncture in the appropriate cases. (i) However, no part of the payment already made by the sugar producers to the cane growers as per fixation of price by the State will be refunded by them. (j) This order will not affect or create any hindrance to any sugar producing factory in paying SMP to the Central Government regularly.” 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further relied upon the statement made by learned Additional Advocate General, which is reproduced below : “Learned Additional Advocate General and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 4 (U.P. Co-operative Cane Union) ....................... During course of the arguments, learned Additional Advocate General has admitted that the judgment and order passed by this Court on 19th December, 2007 is still operative and binding................The Additional Advocate General has further stated that the exercise contemplated under the judgment dated 19th December, 2007 has not yet been undertaken.” 6. During course of the arguments, learned Additional Advocate General has admitted that the judgment and order passed by this Court on 19th December, 2007 is still operative and binding................The Additional Advocate General has further stated that the exercise contemplated under the judgment dated 19th December, 2007 has not yet been undertaken.” 6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General contended that the SAP fixed for a particular year relates to that particular year alone and the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Basti Sugar Mills (supra) since relates to SAP fixed for the crushing season 2006-07, therefore judgment would not be good law for adjudicating upon the SAP fixed for the year 2007-08, which has been dealt with by the Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of Modi Sugar Mills (supra). It is further contended that the arguments which found favour before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Basti Sugar Mills (supra) were for the SAP fixation for the year 2006-07, therefore it was not necessary for the State Government to follow the directions by this Court in the case of Basti Sugar Mills (supra) for fixation of price of sugarcane. There is one more reason for the State Government because the SAP for the year 2007-08 was announced on 31st October, 2007, whereas the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Basti Sugar Mills (supra) was pronounced on 19th December, 2007. It is then contended that the fixation of the SAP is yearly phenomena by the State Government, therefore the judgment in the case of Basti Sugar Mills (supra) would not be attracted for the fixation of SAP for the year 2007-08. 7. It is further contended by learned Additional Advocate General that the judgment in the case of Basti Sugar Mills (supra) has been stayed by the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition filed against the aforesaid judgment and further that the Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of this Court in the case of Modi Sugar Mills (supra) have considered each and every arguments that have been advanced and having adjudicating upon to the extent that the SAP fixed for the year 2007-08 do not suffer from any illegality, therefore this Court should follow the verdict in the case of Modi Sugar Mills (supra) and dismiss these writ petitions. 8. 8. On the question raised as to whether in the fact and circumstances of the case, the directions issued by this Court in the case of Basti Sugar Mills (supra) be not followed by the State Government while fixing the SAP for subsequent year, learned Additional Advocate General contended that this is clear that each year has a separate entity for fixation of the SAP. 9. To this, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that this contention of learned Additional Advocate General cannot be accepted considering the directions issued by this Court to the State Government to undertake exercise as contemplated in the aforesaid judgment before fixing the SAP for the subsequent year. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. and another v. Janapada Sabha Chhindwara and others, AIR 1964 SC 1013 . In paragraphs 22 and 23, the Apex Court has held, which read as under : “22. Lord Radcliffe had occasion to return to the same subject again in Caffoor (Trustees of the Abdul Gaffoor Trust) v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Colambo, 1961-2 WLR 794. Speaking for the Privy Council, Lord Radcliffe considered the problem of the application of res judicata to taxation cases, examined it in detail and came to the conclusion that the said doctrine did not apply to tax cases in the sense that the decision for the levy of a tax for one year does not operate as res judicata in dealing with the question of a tax for the subsequent year. On this occasion, emphasis was not placed so much on the limited nature of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal that deals with tax cases, but it was held that even if the matters goes to a High Court on a statement of the case, the decision of the High Court would also not create a bar of res judicata in dealing with the tax claim for a subsequent year. “The critical thing”, said Lord Radcliffe, “is that the dispute which alone can be determined by any decision given in the course of those proceedings is limited to one subject only, the amount of the assessable income for the year in which the assessment is challenged.” He, no doubt, recognised that in the process of arriving at the necessary decision, it was likely that the consideration of questions of law turning upon the construction of the Ordinance or of other statutes or upon the general law, may be involved, but he thought that the decision of those questions should be treated as collateral or incidental to what is the only issue that is truly submitted to determination (pp. 800-801). This decision would, therefore, support the appellants’ contention that the High Court was in error in dismissing their writ petitions on the preliminary ground that they were barred by res judicata. 23. In considering this question, it may be necessary to distinguish between decision on questions of law which directly and substantially arise in any dispute about the liability for a particular year, and questions of law which arise incidentally or in a collateral manner, as Lord Radcliffe himself has observed in the case of Society of Medical Officers of Health, 1960 AC 551 that the effect of legal decisions establishing the law would be a different matter. If, for instance, the validity of a taxing statute is impeached by an assessee who is called upon to pay a tax for a particular year and the matter is taken to the High Court or brought before this Court and it is held that the taxing statute is valid, it may not be easy to hold that the decision on this basic and material issue would not operate as res judicata against the assessee for a subsequent year. That, however, is a matter on which it is unnecessary for us to pronounce a definite opinion in the present case. In this connection, it would be relevant to add that even if a direct decision of this Court on a point of law does not operate as res judicata in a dispute for a subsequent year, such a decision would, under Art. 141, have a binding effect not only on the parties to it, but also on all Courts in India as a precedent in which the law is declared by this Court. The question about the applicability of res judicata to such a decision would thus be a matter of merely academic significance.” 10. The case of Amalgamated Coalfields Ltd. and another v. Janapada Sabha Chhindwara and others, AIR 1964 SC 1013 has been followed by the Apex Court in the case of Municipal Corpn. of City of Thane v. Vidyut Metallics Ltd. and another, 2007 (8) SCC 688 . The Apex Court in para 22 has held as under : “In our opinion, however, it is necessary to distinguish a decision on a question which directly and substantially arose in any dispute about the liability for a particular year, and a question which arose incidentally or collaterally. If, for instance, the validity of a taxing statute is impeached by an assessee who is called upon to pay a tax for a particular year and the matter is taken to a High Court or to this Court and it is held that the taxing statute is valid, it may not be easy to hold that the decision on this basic and material issue would not operate as res judicata against the assessee in a subsequent year.” 11. In view of the law referred to above and considering the directions issued by this Court in the case of Basti Sugar Mills (supra), we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that the directions issued by this Court in the case of Basti Sugar Mills (supra) were confined to one particular year i.e. for the crushing season 2006-07 and would not be binding and to be followed by the respondents while fixing the SAP for the crushing season 2007-08 or for any subsequent year, coupled with the principle with regard to the law regarding fixation of the price for sugarcane, we are of the opinion that the view taken by this Court in the case of Basti Sugar Mills (supra) are binding and since it is the admitted case of the parties that the same has not been complied with by the State Government while fixing the SAP for the year 2007-08, the fixation of SAP in question is illegal and unjustified. 12. 12. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further relied upon a Constitution Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab and another v. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. and another, (2004) 11 SCC 26 , particularly para 339, which reads as under : “Judicial discipline envisages that a coordinate Bench follow the decision of an earlier coordinate Bench. If a coordinate Bench does not agree with the principles of law enunciated by another Bench, the matter may be referred only to a larger Bench. (See Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Hansoli Devi, (2002) 1 SCC 1 at para 2). But no decision can be arrived at contrary to or inconsistent with the law laid down by the coordinate Bench. Kalyani Stores v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1686 ; and Krishan Kumar Narula v. State of J&K, AIR 1968 SC 1368, both have been rendered by the Constitution Benches. The said decisions, therefore, cannot be thrown out for any purpose whatsoever; more so when both of them if applied collectively lead to a contrary decision proposed by the majority.” 13. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, referred to above, learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that in fact Division Bench of Lucknow Bench of this Court hearing the case of Modi Sugar Mills (supra) ought to have referred the matter to a larger Bench. 14. In view of what has been stated above, to us it appears that since the respondents/State Government have not complied with the directions issued by this Court in the case of Basti Sugar Mills (supra), the decision relied upon by learned Additional Advocate General in the case of Modi Sugar Mills (supra) will not come to the rescue of the State Government. 15. In view of what has been stated above, all these applications are dismissed. ———