ORDER The petitioner is a manufacturer of sugar under Sugar Control Order 1966. 10% of its net saleable manufactured quantity of sugar is appropriated towards levy sugar. The prices thereof are determined by Levy Sugar Price Fixation Order issued every year pertaining to stocks of levy sugar of that production year. Under the Scheme, for a production year, 10% of production is to be appropriated by the Central Government on price to be paid by it. The Central Government makes allocation of this sugar to various State Governments who get the same lifted on payment of the levy price through their respective Food Corporations. If this system of allotment lifting and payment of price are carried out without any delay then the petitioners have no problem but the problem arises when allotments are made but not lifted for considerable period. For this the petitioners and their like had moved this Court. This Court held that in view of subsequent circular of the Central Government, an allotment, which was not lifted within three months by the State Agency, would be converted into free sale sugar but the Central Government put a rider to it that this would not extinguish the liability of the sugar mill. This carry forward was upheld by this Court but with a caveat. This carry over, if continued for a long period, could render the order unreasonable as to the extent of this stock, petitioners money got uselessly stuck and its storage place also stuck up. On both these counts, no compensation was payable to the petitioners. The result would be that if for the month of January, allocation was made and not lifted by March, petitioners would be entitled to sell it as free sale in April but in the meantime, there would be allocations for the months of February and March as well. The result would be that notwithstanding allocations made every month, the quantities were consistently lapsing and the petitioner was, thus, obliged to hold stock large quantities of sugar without any payment thereof because it could not even deal with those stocks as free sale stocks till such orders are passed by the Central Government. The result would be that notwithstanding allocations made every month, the quantities were consistently lapsing and the petitioner was, thus, obliged to hold stock large quantities of sugar without any payment thereof because it could not even deal with those stocks as free sale stocks till such orders are passed by the Central Government. Today, a further supplementary affidavit has been filed in which it is shown that for the production year 2006-2007, the total quantity of unlifted allotment is 89,896 quintals and a reference to details thereof would show that notwithstanding petitioners letters as contained in Annexure-6 series and notwithstanding the Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation's letter as contained in Annexure-7 series to the application, Central Government continued to make allotments every month to the State Government and, thus, the petitioners had to keep holding stocks for the State Government throughout the year. The last such allotment was made on 23.1.2008 notwithstanding the fact that from June 2007 itself, the State Corporation did not lift any sugar. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that this huge stock of sugar which it has kept for such long periods without receiving any compensation must be compensated for by payment of interest over the money involved and payment of demurrage charges for occupying petitioner’s godown for such period. It is now submitted that if the same is not paid or not held to be payable then the carry forward rule should now be declared arbitrary and illegal because this Court upheld the carry forward rule on the basis that carry forward rule would only be for short periods and not like the present. The Central Government is failing to ensure proper, prompt and timely lifting of levy sugar. The plea that if carry forward rule is struck down the entire public distribution system would collapse, it is submitted, has no legs to stand for the simple reason that the State Corporation has not lifted an ounce of sugar almost a year from the petitioners and they still have stocks which they are unable to dispose of. The new crushing season that is 2007-2008 is more than half way through still the liability is not being lifted. The new crushing season that is 2007-2008 is more than half way through still the liability is not being lifted. If carry forward rule is to be permitted then the entire allocation of last crushing season would get added to the liability under the present crushing season and effectively petitioners would now be obliged to deliver not 10% but 20% of its production as levy sugar. It is further submitted that permitting petitioners to deal with 39,000 and odd metric quintals as free sale sugar does not alter the position inasmuch as carry forward rule would carry forward this liability to the present crushing season. 3. In my view, the Central Government should file a proper response to the aforesaid contentions. 4. Put up after four weeks retaining its position. 5. Let a copy of this order be given each to the learned counsel for the Central Government, State Government and Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited.