JUDGMENT S.K. Gangele, J. 1. Appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 23rd March 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 253 of 1999. 2. Appellant challenged the demand by State Government by way of Revenue Recovery Certificate. The main ground for challenge was that the State Government was that the State Government had no power and authority under the provisions of the Sugar cane Control Order, 1966 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Control Order') to fix the price of sugar cane. 3. The learned Single Judge rejected the aforesaid ground on the basis of a Constitution Bench judge of Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed in the case of U.P. Co-operative Cane Unions Federations Vs. West U.P. Sugar Mills Association and others, reported in (2004) 5 SCC 430 . The point raised by the appellant is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court. Hence, in our opinion, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in this regard are in accordance with law. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant also raised a point in regard to procedure for fixation of price of sugar cane. Learned Senior Counsel contended that the procedure prescribed in Second Schedule of Clause 5-A of the Control Order has not been followed in fixing the additional price. Clause 5-A of the Control Order gives power for fixing additional price for sugar cane purchased on or after 1st of October 1974 and Second Schedule under the aforesaid clause prescribes procedure. 5. The aforesaid ground is also not available to the appellant because the additional price of sugar cane was fixed in a meeting held on 24th November 1995, presided over by Deputy Chief Minister. In the aforesaid meeting, Mr. Mahendrakumar, General Manager, Gwalior Sugar Company Ltd., present appellant, was also present. He did not raise any objection in regard to fixation of additional price for sugar cane. Hence, the appellant is bound by the decision of the committee on the basis of principle of acquiescence. Against the demand of additional price an interest at the rate of 14.5 % per annum has also been raised. No reasons have been assigned in imposing the aforesaid rate of interest. Hence, the appellant is bound by the decision of the committee on the basis of principle of acquiescence. Against the demand of additional price an interest at the rate of 14.5 % per annum has also been raised. No reasons have been assigned in imposing the aforesaid rate of interest. Looking to the facts of the case and the fact that certain amount has been paid to the sugar can growers, in our opinion, the rate of interest is excessive. Hence, it would be just and proper to fix the rate of interest at 6 % per annum. 6. Consequently, the order under appeal, passed by the learned Single Judge is up-held. It is directed that in accordance with the Revenue Recover Certificate the appellant shall be liable to pay interest at the rate of 6 % per annum in place of interest at the rate of 14.5 % per annum. With the aforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.