Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1993 (MAD)

Maniyarasu v. Commissioner of Sugar, Chennai

2019-08-01

R.SURESH KUMAR

body2019
JUDGMENT : R. SURESH KUMAR, J. Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the sixth and seventh respondents to clear all the arrears amount of Rs. 3,32,700/- with due interest thereon for the Sugarcane supplied from 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 to them by the petitioners. 1. The prayer sought for in this Writ Petition is, to direct the sixth and seventh respondents to clear all the arrears amount of Rs. 3,32,700/- with due interest thereon for the Sugarcane supplied from 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 to them by the petitioners. 2. Heard Mr. N.S. Ponnaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr. M. Rajarajan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5, Mr. Malaiyendran, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent and Mr. Raguvaran Gopalan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 6 and 7. 3. Though the aforesaid prayer has been made in this Writ Petition, when the Writ Petition was heard on 25.07.2019, in view of the stand taken by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 6 and 7, this Court has passed the following order:- “Learned standing counsel appearing for the 6 and 7 respondents/Sugar Mills made a submission that, in view of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Cooperative Cane Unions Federations vs. West U.P. Sugar Mills Association and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 430 whatever, the State Advisory Price fixed by the respective State Governments over and above the statutory minimum price fixed by the Central Government under the Sugarcane Control Order, cannot be operative, unless it is having a statutory backing. The relevant Government orders issued in the year 2013 or 2015 by the State of Tamil Nadu advising the sugar mills to pay additional amount by way of State Advisory Price, over and above the statutory minimum price fixed by the Central Government, cannot be implemented. 2. The relevant Government orders issued in the year 2013 or 2015 by the State of Tamil Nadu advising the sugar mills to pay additional amount by way of State Advisory Price, over and above the statutory minimum price fixed by the Central Government, cannot be implemented. 2. In this context, the learned standing counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that, in order to have a statutory backing of such fixation by the State Government, the Tamil Nadu State Assembly has passed a Bill called Tamil Nadu Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase Price) Act, (State Act No. 23 of 2018), which got the assent of the Governor of Tamil Nadu on 12.07.2018 and has been gazetted on 12.07.2018 itself. He would further submit that, under Section 3 of the said Act, the State Government shall constitute a Board called the Sugarcane Control Board, which shall consist of various members headed by the Chief Secretary of the State and such Sugarcane Control Board shall fix the said additional price to be payable by Sugar Mills for the ryots for the sugarcane purchased, particularly, during the concerned crushing season. 3. In view of the said submission made by the learned standing counsel, since the law has come into effect which regulate the fixing of State Advisory Price with the statutory backing for sugarcane purchase, this Court wants to know whether such a Sugarcane Control Board has been constituted, headed by the Chief Secretary of the State and if so, the details of such constitution, during the next hearing. 4. For the aforesaid compliance, post the matter on 01.08.2019. A copy of this order shall also be communicated to the Chief Secretary of the Government of Tamil Nadu for necessary information and follow up action. 5. In view of the importance of the issue raised in this Writ Petition, the learned Additional Advocate General of Government of Tamil Nadu at Madurai is requested to appear in this matter on behalf of the State Government.” 4. Pursuant to the said order, today, when the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing, Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, made a submission that, written instruction has been given by the official respondents. Pursuant to the said order, today, when the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing, Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned Additional Advocate General, made a submission that, written instruction has been given by the official respondents. Accordingly, though the Tamil Nadu Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase Price) Act, 2018, had been enacted and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No. 249, dated 12.07.2018, the Rules to be framed under the said Act are yet to be framed and only after framing the said Rules, the Sugarcane Control Board to be constituted within the meaning of Section 3 of the said Act, would be constituted. 5. In this context, the learned Additional Advocate General relied upon the following written instructions given by the official respondents:- “In this connection, it is submitted that the Government of Tamil Nadu have announced to switch over from announcing SAP to a scientific based Revenue Sharing based price fixation model for sugarcane from 2017-18 sugar season onwards under which farmers will be assured of Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) and also receive a share in the revenue realized out of sugar and by-products over and above the Fair and Remunerative Price announced by Government of India. Under this policy the announcement of SAP which was opposed by the private sugar mills has been stopped. To implement Revenue Sharing based sugarcane price fixation, an Act namely the Tamil Nadu Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase Price) Act 2018 has been enacted and published in Tamil Nadu Government Gazette No. 249, dated 12.07.2018. The framing of Rules for the above said Act is under process. Hence, the Sugarcane Control Board will be constituted after the framing of rules.” 6. The learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, would also submit that, in order to complete the task of framing the Rules and thereafter, to constitute the Sugarcane Control Board under Section 3 of the Act, it will take minimum three to six months time. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General. 8. Unless the said Sugarcane Control Board is constituted and the Rules are framed, the functions of the Board earmarked or published, shall not be taken up by the Board effectively and once the Board is constituted and the Rules are framed, certainly, the grievance as that of the petitioners and other similarly placed sugarcane growers can very well be addressed by the said Board. 9. 9. In this context, it is also to be noted, once the Board is constituted, then only, the ryots would be in a position to know whether the Board will look into the State Advisory Price or FRP prospectively i.e., after constituting the Board or after the said Act come into force or the Board will look into the previous years arrears payable to the ryots, based on the State Advisory Price fixed by the said authorities earlier years. 10. Only, at that stage, as to whether the petitioners' plea raised in this writ petition to get the additional price, by way of State Advisory Price or FRP, for the sugarcane supplied for 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, can be considered and to be paid, would be decided. 11. Be that as it may, since the basic requirement of constitution of Sugarcane Board, is to be first met, before which, necessary Rule under the Act has to be framed and if the said work is undertaken and the Board to be constituted in this regard, would be in a position to transact the business, other issues would be sorted out one by one. 12. In that view of the matter, having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and after having considered the submissions made by the learned respective counsel, including the learned Additional Advocate General, this Court is inclined to pass the following order:- (i) The State Government shall constitute a Sugarcane Control Board under Section 3 of the said Act, namely, the Tamil Nadu Sugarcane (Regulation of Purchase Price) Act, 2018, i.e. Act No. 23 of 2018 and also frame the Rules to be made under the said Act, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) Once the Rules are framed and pressed into service, by notifying the same and the Board is constituted to transact the business, the said conditions can be informed to this Court by way of compliance report. Pursuant to which, the further action in this regard can be proceeded. 13. With the above directions, this Court is inclined to dispose of this Writ Petition. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of. 14. No costs. However, the Writ Petition shall be posted on 14.10.2019, for filing compliance report, as directed above.