JUDGMENT : May it be the fact that these nearly forty three years old four pending case records contain unhygienic dust and many mutilated papers but fact remains that these cases are pending in the list of Calcutta High Court awaiting court’s verdict. 2. With the active assistance of the learned advocates for the parties these four cases have been taken up together recovering the sum and substance of the subject matter involved in these four cases which were filed on the same date 26.08.1974 and moved on 27.08.1974 first before this High Court. Initially the CR 5047 (W) of 1974 was filed by The New Swadeshi Sugar Mills Ltd. and another but during pendency of the case names of present petitioners have been recorded in place of earlier petitioners by way of amendment. Similarly, in CR 5047 (W) of 1974, the names of present petitioners have been recorded in place of original petitioners New India Sugar Mills Ltd. and another by amendment. 3. It is pertinent to mention that all these four writ applications involve same issue of price determination of levy sugar for the year 1973-1974 according to the principles laid down in Section 3 (3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Firstly, all the writ applications were heard together and composite orders were passed. Subsequently, the cases were being run separately. When it came to my notice these four cases have again been tagged under orders dated 30.06.2015 and 23.07.2015. ultimately these four matters have been heard together and now taken up for disposal by this single judgment. 4. Four different companies being manufacturers of sugar in North Bihar Sugar Zone of the country have challenged the price fixation of levy sugar for the year 1973-74. According to them, the Union of India has erroneously and arbitrarily fixed the price of levy sugar finally at the rate of Rs.169.80 P. per quintal without following the provisions of Section 3 (3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. As per their estimation the price of levy sugar for that year ought to have been Rs.291.42 p. Per quintal in CR 5045 (W) of 1974, Rs.290,96 p. per quintal in Cr 5046 (W) of 1974, Rs.273.34 per quintal in CR 5047 (W) of 1974 and Rs.341.14 p. per quintal in Cr 5048 (W) of 1974 in terms of said Section 3 (3C) of the Act. They have prayed for declaration that the price determination order in respect of levy sugar for the year 1973-74 is void and for issuing writ of mandamus directing the respondent Union of India to fix the price for that year at the rate as claimed in the writ application per quintal. They have also prayed for writ of prohibition commanding the respondents from not giving effect to the impugned price fixation order. Consequential orders of injunction against the respondents have also been prayed for. 5. On 27.08.1974 an interim order of injunction was passed in terms of prayers (g) and (h) of the writ applications directing the respondents no. 1 to 4 to pay the difference between the price fixed as per price control order for the year 1973-74 and the price estimated by petitioners for that year against delivery of levy sugar by the petitioners to the respondents with a further direction upon the respondents no. 5 to 7 restraining them from realising any Central Excise duty in respect of levy sugar for 1973-74 save and except on the basis of price specified in the Sugar (Price Determination for 1973-74 Production) Order, 1973. In that order petitioners of these four writ applications were directed to furnish bank guarantees in terms of that order as condition of granting interim injunction in their favour. Subsequent to that, on 10th October, 1974 by modification of the interim order dated 27th August, 1974 the petitioners were directed to furnish bank guarantee along with certificate of despatch of sugar with affidavit of Principal Officer of the petitioner companies. By an order dated 10th December, 1974 the earlier orders dated 27.08. 1974 and 10.10.1974 were varied to the following extent in each of the four writ proceedings:- i. In the event any amount that may become refundable by the petitioner no. 1 to the Food Corporation of India, the petitioner no. 1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 12 ½ % per annum on the amount that may become refundable. ii. The Food Corporation of India, the respondent no. 4 undertakes to pay and bear the excise duty on the difference between the petitioners’ respective claimed price and the price fixed by respondent no. 1 or on the excess amount that may become payable or finally determined and shall file such an undertaking with the Central Excise Authorities. ii. The Food Corporation of India, the respondent no. 4 undertakes to pay and bear the excise duty on the difference between the petitioners’ respective claimed price and the price fixed by respondent no. 1 or on the excess amount that may become payable or finally determined and shall file such an undertaking with the Central Excise Authorities. Accordingly the petitioner is not required to collect excise duty on such difference or excess and to furnish any bank guarantee in respect thereof as mentioned in prayer (h) of the petition. iii. The time to furnish the bank guarantee by the petitioner no. 1 in respect of despatches of levy sugar from 22nd August 1974 till 30th November, 1974 is extended up to 15th January, 1975. In respect of despatches made or to be made in the month of December, 1974 and onwards the bank guarantee should be filed within four weeks from the end of each of month. iv. The Registrar, Appellate Side of this Court is directed to examine the acceptability or otherwise of the form of guarantee that may be furnished by the Food Corporation of India. In case such form of guarantee is not acceptable to the Registrar, the Bond of guarantee is to be furnished by the petitioner no. 1 in the form which is accepted and approved by the Registrar. 6. Subsequently, bank guarantee was furnished by each of the four petitioner companies. 7. On 29th March, 2001 all these four writ petitions were dismissed with observation in each case- “This matter is in respect of levy sugar challenge of which is no longer existable in view of the Supreme Court judgment reported in JJ 1993 (6) S.C. 561 (shri Malaprabha Co-op. Sugar Factory Ltd. vs. Union of India and Anr.). in view of the same, the writ petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The Bank Guarantee which has been lying with the Registrar general, Appellate Side will be encashed by the respondents and the principal sum will be adjusted as against their claim and the interest accrued thereon will be returned to the petitioners.” 8. in view of the same, the writ petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The Bank Guarantee which has been lying with the Registrar general, Appellate Side will be encashed by the respondents and the principal sum will be adjusted as against their claim and the interest accrued thereon will be returned to the petitioners.” 8. Said order dated 29.03.2001 was recalled by an order dated 30.07.2003 considering the plea of the petitioners that the judgment which has been passed by the supreme Court is applicable to the notification except the notification dated 28.11.1974 which is related to the subject matter of 1974-75 not for 1973-74 and that the Supreme Court did leave out the notification dated 28.11.1974 by saying that the same came to be issued before the new pricing policy was introduced. At the time of hearing before passing the order dated 30.07.2003 the learned counsel for the petitioner apprised the Court that Bank Guarantee was not encashed and the amount was not adjusted as per order dated 29.03.2001. However, at the time of final hearing of these matters learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the bank guarantees which were deposited by the petitioners before learned Registrar have been enchased by the respondents. Said submission was not controverted by learned counsel for the respondents. 9. Although at the time of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners claimed that a copy of affidavit affirmed by one Chandra Prakash Seth on 17th January, 1981 was served on the petitioners from the side of respondents, indisputably, no such affidavit was filed in Court. 10. One affidavit in opposition affirmed on behalf of respondents no. 5, 6 and 7 on 09.09.2013 has been filed in each of these four proceedings. Another affidavit in opposition affirmed on 02.09.2013 on behalf of respondent no. 1 has also been filed in each of these proceedings. In the said affidavits in opposition the respondents denied the contention of the petitioners made against Sugar (Price Determination for 1973-74 Production) Order. It has been claimed that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Malaprabha Co-operative Sugar Factory Vs. Union of India the present writ applications are not maintainable. In the said affidavits in opposition the respondents denied the contention of the petitioners made against Sugar (Price Determination for 1973-74 Production) Order. It has been claimed that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shri Malaprabha Co-operative Sugar Factory Vs. Union of India the present writ applications are not maintainable. Respondents have specifically averred that the Central Government took proper and reasonable steps to determine the price payable for the levy sugar in accordance with the principle laid down in Section 3 (3C) of the Act and that the allegations (of the petitioners) that the Central Government has failed to recommend the price as per Tariff Commission is contrary and is not based on any evidence. it has been claimed that the Central Excise Authority are entitled to recover the excise duty as per the price fixed by the Central Government for the said sugar and petitioners are bound to pay the same. The Union of India in its affidavit-in-opposition has also claimed applicability of the provisions of Sugar Price Equalisation Fund Act, 1976 (as amended in 1984). In that affidavit it has been claimed that all the relevant factor, recommendations of Tariff Commission regarding provision of various cost escalations etc. in fixing the fair and reasonable price of levy sugar as notified time to time and discharged its statutory duty or obligations enjoined under Section 3 (3C) of the Essential Commodities Act. In the affidavits respondents contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear these cases but at the time of hearing learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents are not pressing such objection about jurisdiction of this Court. However, dismissal of all the writ applications has been prayed for. 11. Succinctly it appears to me that each of these four writ applications relate to reasonableness or arbitrariness in fixing the price of levy sugar for the year 1973-74 in respect of North Bihar Sugar Zone in terms of Sugar (Price Determination for 1973-74 Production) Order, 1973. Respondent no. 1 fixed uniform price of Rs.169.80 P. per quintal for collection of levy sugar from the sugar manufacturing concerns for the relevant year and zone concerned. Initially said price was fixed at a lesser rate on study before sugar cane harvesting but subsequently the rate was finally enhanced by amendment. Respondent no. 1 fixed uniform price of Rs.169.80 P. per quintal for collection of levy sugar from the sugar manufacturing concerns for the relevant year and zone concerned. Initially said price was fixed at a lesser rate on study before sugar cane harvesting but subsequently the rate was finally enhanced by amendment. Respondents claim that said price fixation was done by experts in the field of technology and cost assessing in the light of the provisions of Section 3 (3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. On the other hand, four different sugar manufacturing companies in their respective writ applications have claimed different rates of levy sugar for the self-same zone for the same year 1973-74 alleging that the principles for price fixation as per Section 3 (3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were not followed and the said fixation is arbitrary. 12. At the outset I like to mention that in order to establish alleged arbitrary fixation of sugar price for the year 1973-74 none of the four different applicant companies placed before this Court Trading Account, Profit and Loss Account and Balance Sheet of the company for the year 1973-74. Had it been filed, a true picture of manufacturing cost, capital investment, duty and tax paid by the company concerned and incidental expenditures incurred by the company might have been clear before this Court to reasonably assess the ex-factory price of sugar per quintal calculating manufacturing cost and reasonable return on the capital employed by the company. 13. In these matters both the parties referred to the Sugar (Price Determination for 1973-74) Order, 1973. Petitioners allege that it is arbitrary and liable to be set aside. Respondents claim it to be reasonable and justified as the same has been prepared by expert body of public authority. Undisputedly it is a public record. Under Section 35 of the Evidence Act said order is relevant. Said order speaks about fixation of price of levy sugar at the rate of Rs.169.80 p. per quintal for the North Bihar Zone for the sugar manufacturing year 1973-74. Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act it may be presumed by this Court that performing regularly the common course of official business said order was declared by the respondents. Said order speaks about fixation of price of levy sugar at the rate of Rs.169.80 p. per quintal for the North Bihar Zone for the sugar manufacturing year 1973-74. Under Section 114 of the Evidence Act it may be presumed by this Court that performing regularly the common course of official business said order was declared by the respondents. Of course, that presumption is rebuttable in law and specially when challenged in a writ proceedings where such a general price fixation order can be declared arbitrary and void. In these cases burden under Section 102, Evidence Act lies upon the petitioners to prove that the said sugar price determination order was made without adhering to the provisions under Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and it was done arbitrarily. Unless the said burden is discharged by the petitioners successfully said sugar price fixation should be considered proper and reasonable made by public authority in course of discharging regular course of official business and justified in consequence. 14. These four cases relate to price fixation of levy sugar for North Bihar Sugar Zone of the country for the year 1973-74. 15. Petitioners have annexed a letter dated 17th March, 1972 relating to price fixation for 1972-73 which is remotely relevant. Similarly, the annexed Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order, 1972 dated 15.06.1972 has also not very must impact for determination on the matter under consideration. 16. Annexure D to the writ applications is the impugned finally determined sugar price order dated 14.06.1973 for the year 1973-74 after amendment of earlier sugar price determination order dated 28th November, 1973 (annexure C) in respect of the Sugar Zones of the country including the North Bihar Zone. In annexure E the petitioners have stated about working result of 25 factories of the Zone for the year 1973-74 sugar session as has been shown and in annexure F the petitioners’ self made calculation of levy price for North Bihar Zone for the session 1973-74 has been shown. Said annexure E and F appear to have been prepared at the instance of petitioners on the basis of their own survey. Said annexure E and F appear to have been prepared at the instance of petitioners on the basis of their own survey. They have interpreted said annexure in paragraphs 28, 29 and 30 with argumentative statements to establish that the Tariff Commission’s report for the relevant sugar session was not prepared in compliacne of Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act and so the impugned price fixation order is arbitrary and illegal. In my opinion, petitioners’ statements made in annexures E and F are not sufficient to rebut the presumption of correctness, reasonableness and justifiability of report of Tariff Commission or the impugned order of fixation of price of levy sugar for the year 1973-74 for North Bihar Zone as per argumentative contentions made in the writ applications. In this connection, I like to mention that in annexure F the petitioners have claimed to add cost escalations for additional transport charges, increase of rate of interest, repairs and maintenance cost etc. with the provision of escalation in the report of Tariff Commission which is not fortified by cogent document like books of accounts of the concerned petitioner company. Mere surmise of the petitioners is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of bona fide of annexure D which is claimed to have been made in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (3C) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Moreover, annexure R-2 to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respondent no. 1 speaks about consideration of material relevant factors for price determination for 1973-74. 17. Annexure G to the writ applications is resolution dated 22nd February, 1974 dealing with the recommendations made by Tariff Commission after fresh enquiry into cost structure of sugar and fair price payable to the sugar industry. Said resolution does not speak anything material which was not considered for fixation of price of levy sugar in the impugned order (annexure D). in paragraph 30 the petitioners have contended in substance that the impugned order of price fixation for levy sugar and the report of Tariff Commission for the relevant year did not consider certain facts relating to wages hike, increase of cane transport charges fuel charges, bank loan interest, maintenance charges, price index, depreciation, minimum bonus etc. According to the writ applications the recommendation of Tariff Commission for return of Rs.12.60 per quintal of sugar on the capital employed is insufficient and disproportionate. According to the writ applications the recommendation of Tariff Commission for return of Rs.12.60 per quintal of sugar on the capital employed is insufficient and disproportionate. Annexure R-2 to affidavit-in-opposition stands contrary to such allegations. In my opinion, said contentions might have been subject of fact finding authority for investigation collecting evidence but this writ jurisdiction is not the proper course for such investigation. The only question which may be considered by this Court is whether the provisions under Section 3 (3C) of the Essential Commodities Act were violated in fixation of price of levy sugar for North Bihar Sugar Zone for the year 1973-74 and whether the fixation of price was done arbitrarily. I reiterate here that in these four writ applications claims have been laid for fixation of price of levy sugar per quintal for sugar session 1973-74 different from one another while the respondent Union of India fixed uniform price for the entire zone for the relevant year. The statements made in the writ applications may be considered as pleading which should be substantiated by proof. 18. Annexure H to the writ applications is a copy of letter dated 15th October, 1973 addressed by Indian Sugar Mills Association to the Chief Director (by name), Directorate of Sugar & Vanaspati, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Food, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi. In this letter attention was drawn to increase in railway freight, transportation cost, dearness allowance, power, fuel, consumable stores, repairs and maintenance, interest charges etc. and expenses on spraying for combating privills attack for consideration in fixation of provisional levy prices for 1973-74. Referring to the said letter (annexure H) subsequent letters dated 5.11.1973 and 7.12.1973 were also issued by that association on the same subject as claimed. 19. There are some enclosures to annexure H showing the one letter dated 1.12.1973 and one letter and two messages dated 17.12.1973 sent by Bihar Sugar Mills Association protesting against price determination made for 1973-74. As per enclosures to annexure H of the writ applications telegram was sent on 15.12.1973 by Indian Sugar Mills Association protesting against the price fixation order dated 14.12.1973. Said association also sent letter dated 13.05.1974 for early announcement of final levy prices for 1973-74 sugar session expecting such announcement in June, 1974. As per enclosures to annexure H of the writ applications telegram was sent on 15.12.1973 by Indian Sugar Mills Association protesting against the price fixation order dated 14.12.1973. Said association also sent letter dated 13.05.1974 for early announcement of final levy prices for 1973-74 sugar session expecting such announcement in June, 1974. Petitioners have not filed any document to show that said letters and messages were actually served on the addresses or responded by any addressee. 20. Copy of letter dated 4th June, 1974 addressed jointly by Indian Sugar Mills Association and National Federation of Co-operative Sugar Factories Ltd. New Delhi to the Jt. Secretary to the government of India, Ministry of Agriculture (Department of Food), Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi has been made annexure I to the writ applications. Said letter is also for fixation of final levy prices for the season 1973-74. This letter speaks about Government’s assurance that final levy price for the season 1973-74 would be announced sometime during June, 1974. Surprisingly, no document has been annexed by petitioners that Government had ever given such assurance. There is averment that Government had issued circular letter inviting the factories to forward their actual results as on 31.5.1974 as also their estimates for the remaining part of the season. Reasons best known to the petitioners companies as to why they have withhold such circular letter and why they have not annexed any paper with their applications to show the actual results of their factories as on 31.05.1974 along with their estimates for the remaining part of the sugar season to substantiate the averments made in paragraphs 30, 31, 32 and 33 of their applications. In that letter pointing out certain aspects of the report of Tariff Commission grievance has been expressed and request has been made for consideration for fixation of final levy price for the season 1973-74. In that letter pointing out certain aspects of the report of Tariff Commission grievance has been expressed and request has been made for consideration for fixation of final levy price for the season 1973-74. However, there is no document on record to establish any assurance from the side of Government for further fixation of price of levy sugar after 14.12.1973 which appears in annexure D. copies of notification dated 7.9.1973 of Government of Uttar Pradesh remitting purchase tax on sugarcane for the year 1973-74, notification dated 10.4.1974 of Haryana Government imposing tax on purchase of sugarcane, notification dated 15.2.1973 of Finance Department of the Government of Maharashtra specifying the rate of tax per kilogram of sugarcane purchase in supersession of earlier Government Notification, press report appearing in the Times of India, New Delhi issue dated 3,12.1973 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh increasing dearness allowance for the workmen of sugar factories of the State, minutes of the meeting held on 06.12.1973 at New Delhi in connection with demands for revision of wages of the workers in the sugar industry and payment of retaining allowance published by the Ministry of Labour, Government of India relating the demand of sugar workers for revision of wage structure and payment of retaining allowance and notification dated 19.1.1974 of the Government of Uttar Pradesh making the Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) (Amendment) Rules, 1974 have been enclosed as enclosures to annexure I. In this annexure also I do not find any assurance of the Government for revision of any levy sugar price for the sugar season 1973-74. 21. Annexure J to the writ application is order dated 18.5.1974 of the Government of India relating to sell and ex-factory delivery of levy sugar at the price as provided in the sugar (Price Determination for 1973-74 Production) Amendment Order, 1973 dated 14th December, 1973. As such, obviously, on 18.5.1974 the Government confirmed the price determination order dated 14.12.1973 which is the result after consideration of the factors as stated in annexure R-2 (supra). 22. In each of these four cases the respondent no. 1 has filed affidavit-in-opposition and respondents no. 5 to 7 have jointly filed affidavit-in-opposition. As such, obviously, on 18.5.1974 the Government confirmed the price determination order dated 14.12.1973 which is the result after consideration of the factors as stated in annexure R-2 (supra). 22. In each of these four cases the respondent no. 1 has filed affidavit-in-opposition and respondents no. 5 to 7 have jointly filed affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavits-in-opposition the contentions made by petitioners in writ applications relating noncompliance of the provisions under Section 3 (3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 at the instance of respondents in fixation of price of levy sugar for the sugar season 1973-74 have been emphatically denied with assertion that the price of levy sugar was correctly fixed by the Government on 14.12.1973 after taking into account the cost schedules recommended by the Tariff Commission in its report of 1973 and all other relevant factors and the calculations made by the petitioners are exaggerated. Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ application. In addition, respondent no. 1 has prayed for a direction upon petitioners to refund excess price realised under the interim order of the Court together with the prescribed interest under the Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund Act, 1976 from the date on which such excess price was realised by petitioners and credit the same to the fund set up under the said Act after adjusting the Bank Guarantee encashed and that the excess excise duty, if any, charged by the petitioners in pursuance of the interim orders of this Court be credited to the aforesaid fund along with prescribed interest, in case the same was not paid to the Central Excise Authority concerned and in case the same was paid to the Central Excise Authority concerned, such authority may be directed to credit the excess excise duty to the said fund. 23. Affidavits in reply have been filed by petitioners in CR 5046 of 1974 and CR 5047 of 1974 denying the assertions of respondents made in their affidavits-in-opposition and confirming the plea of the writ applications. 24. Relating to exchange of affidavits I am of the view that the allegations and counter allegations of the parties are oath versus oath. 25. Admittedly all the four petitioner companies have their sugar manufacturing factories in North Bihar sugar zone and quality of sugar produced in their factories is graded as D- 29. 24. Relating to exchange of affidavits I am of the view that the allegations and counter allegations of the parties are oath versus oath. 25. Admittedly all the four petitioner companies have their sugar manufacturing factories in North Bihar sugar zone and quality of sugar produced in their factories is graded as D- 29. None of these four writ applications has been filed by petitioners in representative character. In each case petitioners are liable to establish independently that the impugned levy sugar price fixation order for the 1973-74 sugar season was made arbitrarily in violation of the provisions under Section 3 (3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Respondent no. 1 has claimed that in fixing price of levy sugar finally on 14.12.1973 for the year 1973-74 for North Bihar Sugar Zone at the rate of Rs.169.80 p. per quintal the factors which were considered are – 1. Driage percentage of sugar, 2. Average rate of sugarcane price per quintal, 3. Cane cess/purchase tax, 4. Cooperative society commission, 5. Driage on said factors no. 2, 3 and 4 at percentage in factor no, 1, 6. Cane price including cess, co operative society commission and driage, 7. Recovery of sugar 1973-74 estimates, 8. Duration (days) 1973-74 estimates, 9. Cost of cane, 10. Conversion charges – constant, variable, semi variable and fixed, 11. Return and 12. D.K. Escalations (10 point 0). The price per quintal was fixed on consideration of above factors. Petitioners have claimed that the estimated duration of the crushing season and estimated recovery of sugar differ from factual duration and return and the actual price paid by petitioners for purchasing sugar canes was not taken into account for price fixation of levy sugar. 26. Relating to the rate of levy sugar the different claim has been made in prayer (b) of the writ petitions which is shown hereunder: CR 5045 (W) of 1974 “(b) A writ of and/or Order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to fix the price of the levy sugar for the 1973-74 season in accordance with the principles laid down in Section 3 (3C) of the Act and at the rate of Rs.291.42 per quintal as shown in the annexure ‘F’ hereof”. CR 5046 (W) of 1974 “(b) A writ of and/or Order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. CR 5046 (W) of 1974 “(b) A writ of and/or Order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to fix the price of the levy sugar for the 1973-74 season in accordance with the principles laid down in Section 3 (3C) of the Act and at the rate of Rs.290.96 per quintal as shown in the annexure ‘F’ hereof”. CR 5047 (W) of 1974 “(b) A writ of and/or Order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to fix the price of the levy sugar for the 1973-74 season in accordance with the principles laid down in Section 3 (3C) of the Act and at the rate of Rs.273.34 per quintal as shown in the annexure ‘F’ hereof”. CR 5048 (W) of 1974 “(b) A writ of and/or Order and/or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to fix the price of the levy sugar for the 1973-74 season in accordance with the principles laid down in Section 3 (3C) of the Act and at the rate of Rs.341.14 per quintal as shown in the annexure ‘F’ hereof”. In annexure F of each of the writ petitions petitioners’ calculation of price has been shown and the amount differs because claim of delivery of levy sugar up to 21.8.1974 made in CR 5045 (W) of 1974 is 73902 bags, in CR 5046 (W) of 1974 is 52456 bags, in CR 5047 (W) of 1974 is 64565 bags and in CR 5048 (W) of 1974 is 54424 bags. This Court is not satisfied to accept it as cogent reason to lay different rate of price for levy sugar for the same sugar zone for same sugar season. The self-assessment made in annexure F does not appear to be fortified by plausible evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness of the price fixation for levy sugar for the year 1973-74 for North Bihar Zone made in annexure D of the writ applications. 27. The self-assessment made in annexure F does not appear to be fortified by plausible evidence to rebut the presumption of correctness of the price fixation for levy sugar for the year 1973-74 for North Bihar Zone made in annexure D of the writ applications. 27. Section 3 (3C) of the Essential Commodities Act speaks – Where any producer is required by an order made with reference to clause (f) of Sub-section (2) to sell any kind of sugar (whether to the Central Government or a State Government or to an officer or agent of such Government or to any other persons or class of persons) and either no notification in respect of such sugar has been issued under Sub-section (3-A) or any such notification having been issued, has ceased to remain in force by efflux of time, then notwithstanding anything contained in Subsection (3) there shall be paid to that producer an amount therefor which shall be calculated with reference to such price of sugar as the Central Government may, by order determine, having regard to– a. The minimum price, if any, fixed for sugarcane by the Central Government under this Section; b. The manufacturing cost of sugar; c. The duty or tax, if any, paid or payable thereon; and d. The securing of a reasonable return on the capital employed in the business of manufacturing sugar, and different prices may be determined from time to time for different areas or for different factories or for different kinds of sugar. Explanation:- For the purpose of this Sub-section, ‘producer’ means a person carrying on the business of manufacturing sugar. 28. Subsequent to sugar season 1973-74 clause 5A in Sugar (Control) Order, 1966 was introduced to see that the sugar industry gets reasonable margin for meeting their requirements including modernisation and expansion of plant. However, said clause is not applicable in price fixation for the sugar season 1973-74. Be that as it may, no arbitrariness in fixing sugar price for 1973-74 in violation of the provisions under Section 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act is permissible. 29. In these cases under consideration it is not established that in fixation of price of levy sugar for 1973-74 sugar season minimum price for sugarcane as per Section 3 (3C) (b) of the Essential Commodities Act was not considered by the expertised body Tariff Commission. 29. In these cases under consideration it is not established that in fixation of price of levy sugar for 1973-74 sugar season minimum price for sugarcane as per Section 3 (3C) (b) of the Essential Commodities Act was not considered by the expertised body Tariff Commission. There is contention of the petitioners that Tariff Commission did not consider minimum price payable for sugarcane which has been denied by respondents. Petitioners have contended that the Commission did not consider selling commission in cost schedule and depreciation in blocked assets at the time of fixation of price of levy sugar for 1973-74 season. In annexure R2 to the affidavit-in-opposition respondent no. 1 has shown that the Tariff Commission considered the matters of co-operative society commission, cane price including commission service tax, cess, conversion charge, D.A. escalation including full impact of bonus, additional bonus, additional depreciation also among many other factors to secure reasonable return of the sugar producers. This Court cannot brush aside the claim of respondent no. 1 that following the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in The Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills Vs. Union of India reported in (1974) 1 SCC 129 fair price for levy sugar was determined for 1973-74 in the order dated 14.12.1973 (Annexure D of the writ petition). Having gone through the said judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the annexure R-2 of affidavit-in-opposition I am not satisfied to hold that there was gross violation of the provisions under Section 3 (3C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or there was any arbitrariness in fixation of price of levy sugar for 1973-74 sugar season for North Bihar Zone in the order dated 14.12.1973. 30. In course of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Shri Malaprabha Coop. Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (1994) 1 SCC 648 , Matalakshmi Sugar Mills Company Vs. Union of India and Others reported in (2009) 16 SCC 569 and The Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills Vs. The Union of India reported in (1973) 1 SCC 129 in the matter of fixation of price for levy sugar. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the decisions in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Company (Supra) and The Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills (Supra). The Union of India reported in (1973) 1 SCC 129 in the matter of fixation of price for levy sugar. Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the decisions in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Company (Supra) and The Panipat Co-operative Sugar Mills (Supra). He also referred to another decision of the Supreme Court of India in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. N.T.P.C. Ltd. and Ors. reported in (2011) 12 SCC 400 in support of his arguments that Tariff Commission is an expert body and its function, unless arbitrary cannot be interfered with invoking power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assuming power of appellate forum. 31. In Shri Malaprabha (Supra) case the principles emerge from the case of (1973) 1 SCC 129 with reference to price fixation have been followed. In the present cases under consideration the respondent Union of India has claimed that the principles of (1973) 1 SCC 129 were followed for price determination of levy sugar for 1973-74. In paragraph 69 of the case of Shri Malaprabha (Supra) following the principles, paragraph 30 of the decision in Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported in (1990) 3 SCC 223 has been quoted as “The reasonableness of the order made by the Government in exercise of its power under Sub-section (3-C) will, of course, be tested asking the question whether or not the matters mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) have been generally considered by the Government in making its estimate of the price, but the Court will not strictly scrutinise the extent to which those matters or any other matters have been taken into account. There is sufficient compliance with the sub-section, if the Government has addressed its mind to the factors mentioned in clauses (a) to (d), amongst other factors which the Government may reasonably consider to be relevant and has come to a conclusion, which any reasonable person, placed in the position of the Government, would have come to”. This principle strengthens the arguments advanced on behalf of respondents in these four cases under consideration of this Court. In these cases relevant year of price fixation is 1973-74 when clause 5A of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966 was not introduced. The petitioners cannot get any benefit of the ruling reported in (1994) 1 SCC 648 . 32. This principle strengthens the arguments advanced on behalf of respondents in these four cases under consideration of this Court. In these cases relevant year of price fixation is 1973-74 when clause 5A of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966 was not introduced. The petitioners cannot get any benefit of the ruling reported in (1994) 1 SCC 648 . 32. At the time of hearing learned counsel for the petitioners made extensive arguments referring to various precedents in the matter of jurisdiction of this Court to hear their applications. Learned counsel for the respondents in his turn did not press the contention relating to jurisdiction. Therefore, said matter is not taken up for consideration in this judgment. 33. In summing up the foregoing discussions made in this judgment I find no substance in the claims of the petitioners against the Sugar (Price Determination for 1973-74 Production) Order dated 14.12.1973. As a result, all these four writ applications are liable to be dismissed. 34. Before concluding the discussions, I like to mention that under orders of this Court the respondents paid excess amount for delivery of levy sugar by the petitioners for the sugar season 1973-74. Bank guarantee was also furnished under orders of Court by petitioners to secure such excess payment and subsequently respondents had encashed such Bank guarantee for the principal amount. In consequence to this judgment dismissing the writ applications the respondents are entitled to the interest at the rate of 12 ½ per cent per annum from petitioners on the amount paid in excess to the determined price for the levy sugar delivered by petitioners for 1973-74 sugar season from the date of excess payment till the date of realisation of such excess payment under the provisions of the Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund Act 1976 read with the Levy Sugar Price Equalisation Fund (Amendment) Act, 1984. 35. Having considered the facts and circumstances of these cases the justice demands dismissal of these writ applications with moderate costs payable by the petitioners to the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal for utilisation in providing legal aid to the poor litigants so that they can avail the access to justice. 36. 35. Having considered the facts and circumstances of these cases the justice demands dismissal of these writ applications with moderate costs payable by the petitioners to the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal for utilisation in providing legal aid to the poor litigants so that they can avail the access to justice. 36. As a result, each of these four writ applications is dismissed with cost of two thousand G.M.s (1 G.M. = Rs.17/) for each case to be deposited by petitioners with the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal within sixty days from this date. The petitioners are directed to pay to the respondent no.1 within 60 days interest @ 12 ½ % per annum on the excess amount realised by them from respondent no. 1 against delivery of levy sugar for the year 1973-74 till the date of recovery of the excess paid amount by respondents. The petitioners must deposit authentic copy of the receipt showing deposit of costs within seventy days hereof before the learned Registrar General, Appellate Side, High Court, Calcutta in order to avoid legal consequence of non-compliance of Court’s direction. The petitioners are also directed to pay the excise duty, if not already paid, as per price determined by the Government for the sugar season 1973-74 to the Excise Authority and failing which the said Authority shall be entitled to recover the same in accordance with law. 37. Interim orders passed earlier stand vacated. 38. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, on priority basis following the usual procedure.