Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2025 DIGILAW 195 (SC)

J. H. v. Sugar Limited VS State Of Uttar Pradesh

2025-01-08

J.K.MAHESHWARI, RAJESH BINDAL

body2025
ORDER : 1. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-State, pointed out that affidavit in compliance with the orders dated 21.11.2024 and 20.12.2024 has been filed in the Registry of this Court. A copy thereof has also been supplied in the Court. 2. It was further submitted that the order of this Court dated 21.11.2024 has already been complied with by passing an order on 19.12.2024 by the Cane Commissioner. The petitioner sugar mill has been allocated 54.62 lakhs quintals of sugarcane. Provisional allocation to all the seven sugar mills on the same day has also been made. 3. The matter was kept for today as it was sought to be pointed out on the last date of hearing that before allocation of further area to the petitioner sugar mill, the Court may be satisfied that the sugar mill has started operating, which otherwise was lying close for the last two years. 4. Today, Mr. Aman Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the supply of sugarcane was received on 01.01.2025 and the crushing has already started. The sugar mill will now operate in full capacity. He further submitted that the sugarcane price shall be paid to the farmers on due dates after supply of sugarcane. The request is for allocation of further area out of the balance sugarcane available. It was submitted that the total estimate of available sugarcane will be 1,060 lakh quintals. Out of which 493.26 lakh quintals have already been allocated and the balance of about 567 lakh quintals remained. The same is to be allocated proportionately to all the seven sugar mills in the area. 5. Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-State, submitted that petitioner sugar mill is presently operating at about 50% of the capacity. Even if the entire earlier allotted sugarcane is received by the petitioner, it will go much beyond the crushing season. The operation of the petitioner sugar mill be reviewed after a couple of weeks and thereafter further allocation will be made, otherwise the farmers may suffer. He further submitted that the petitioner earlier furnished bank guarantee of Rs.15 crores, however, the estimated amount to be paid by the petitioner in a fortnight may be little above Rs.17 crores. In order to secure that amount, an additional bank guarantee is to be furnished by the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner earlier furnished bank guarantee of Rs.15 crores, however, the estimated amount to be paid by the petitioner in a fortnight may be little above Rs.17 crores. In order to secure that amount, an additional bank guarantee is to be furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner may be directed to furnish additional bank guarantee which should be topped up in case the bank guarantee is encashed, either in full or in part, for payment of dues to the farmers. He further submitted that there are many factors on the basis of which sugarcane area is allocated to the sugarcane mills and not only the capacity of the sugar mills. 6. Mr. Pradeep Kant, learned senior counsel appearing for the Cane Cooperative Development Societies (I.A. No.5436 of 2025), submitted that the farmers are suffering as an appropriate number of sugarcane purchase centres have not been opened. In response, Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior counsel, submitted that as the entire sugarcane area had not been allotted to the sugar mills, due to this sufficient number of sugarcane purchase centres have not been set up. After the allotment of entire area to the different sugar mills, a sufficient number of purchase centres will be opened. 7. After considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, we direct that (I) The balance sugarcane area having estimated sugarcane yield of 567 lakh quintals be allocated in proportionate to the crushing capacity of all the seven sugar mills. (II) The petitioner shall furnish additional bank guarantee of Rs.3,00,00,000/- (Rupees Three Crores)in addition to Rs.15,00,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Crores) already furnished within a period of one week in favour of the Sugarcane Commissioner. (III) It is made clear that in case of any default, if the bank guarantee is required to be encashed either in part or full, so as to enable the petitioner to purchase the sugarcane subsequently he will have to top up the bank guarantee. (IV) As the allocation of the balance sugarcane area will be made by the Cane Commissioner, the issue sought to be raised by the Cane Cooperative Development Societies shall be addressed with the setting up of more sugarcane purchase centres. 8. To review the working of the petitioner sugar mill and also keeping in view the interest of the sugarcane growers, as suggested by Mr. 8. To review the working of the petitioner sugar mill and also keeping in view the interest of the sugarcane growers, as suggested by Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, we post the matter for hearing on 30.01.2025 to be taken up at 03:00 p.m.