JUDGMENT : D.H. Waghela, J. 1. These appeals are preferred by the State from the common interim order made in number of petitions by learned Single Judge on 22-5-2014. It is dear from the bare reading of the impugned order that the main original writ petitions and connected matters were to be heard on merits in June 2014, but during summer vacation, the authorities had issued notices and precipitated the matter, which required learned Single Judge to make an interim order. The original petitioners, the respondents herein, are owners of sugar factories and there is no dispute about the fact that the Fair Remunerative Price (FRP) for sugarcane is prescribed by the Central Government which is the minimum which a farmer is entitled to receive for the sugarcane supplied by him. There is also no dispute about the fact that various States have, by negotiations or otherwise, fixed amounts higher than the amount fixed by the Central Government; and for the parties herein, the bone of contention is about the State Government having fixed higher fair remunerative price for the farmers. Thus, legality or otherwise of fixing higher amount of remunerative price by the State Government under the State Act is the bone of contention. While the legal issues are being examined in the petitions of the respondents, by learned Single Judge in the petitions pending before him, it was considered to be inappropriate for the Government to initiate action to forfeit sugar stocks and also initiate criminal prosecution, according to the impugned order, and it is on that basis that it was deemed proper to stay all such actions till the end of July 2014, in the fond hope that the original petitions shall be disposed on merits in the meantime. It is now fairly stated at the bar that the original petitions are being heard on day-to-day basis and the hearing is likely to be concluded within two days, after which the decision may be pronounced in the discretion of the Court. Therefore, the only issue which survives for consideration is about the actions proposed to be taken by the State Government till the date of decision which may be pronounced by the learned Single Judge in the original petitions. Therefore, the only issue which survives for consideration is about the actions proposed to be taken by the State Government till the date of decision which may be pronounced by the learned Single Judge in the original petitions. There is a broad consensus that even as nothing is said in the impugned order about the demand of remunerative price at particular rate, or payment thereof, the impugned order is in any case operating only against forfeiture of sugar stocks and initiation of criminal prosecution. It is understood and conceded that the impugned order does not speak a word about the rate at which payments are to be demanded or made for the sugarcane supplied by growers to the original petitioners. It is also agreed and understood that the decision which may be rendered in the original petitions shall bind the parties for making or recovery of payments, subject to the rights of parties to challenge the order of learned Single Judge. 2. Under the circumstances, the appeals are disposed, without expressing any opinion on the demands made by the State Government or the sugarcane growers or the legality of fixing of higher price by the State Government; and only with the clarification that the impugned order shall operate till the final disposal of the petitions or till the end of July 2014 whichever is earlier, only insofar as initiation of action to forfeit sugar stocks and initiation of criminal prosecution is concerned. The appeals accordingly stand disposed along with I.A. made therein, with no order as to cost.