- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
New India Sugar Works v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioners, manufacturers of “khandsari” sugar in Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh, challenged State notifications that (i) required them to supply 50 per cent of their sugar to the Government at a controlled “levy” price and (ii) imposed conditions on the sale of the remaining stock. They alleged that the levy applied even to sugar produced before the notifications and that the controlled price was below cost. Writ petitions were filed in the Supreme Court of India asserting violations of fundamental rights.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the levy and price-control notifications infringe Articles 19(1)(g) and 14 of the Constitution of India.
- Whether the levy could validly extend to sugar manufactured and stocked before the notifications came into force.
- Whether the controlled “levy price” is unreasonable because it allegedly fails to cover production costs.
- Whether sub-clauses requiring certificates before the free sale of the remaining 50 per cent of sugar are arbitrary.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners’ Arguments
- The levy and price fixation unreasonably restrict their right to carry on business (Art. 19(1)(g)) and are arbitrary (Art. 14).
- The notifications cannot retrospectively cover sugar produced before their issuance.
- The controlled price is so low that it does not meet production costs, causing serious loss.
- The certificate requirement in sub-clauses (5)/(3) effectively blocks free sale of the balance sugar and related products.
Respondents’ Submissions
- The measures aim at equitable distribution of sugar at fair prices; consumer interest predominates over producer profit.
- The notifications are not retrospective; they operate prospectively on existing stocks once issued.
- The Attorney-General undertook to have the impugned sub-clauses deleted to prevent inconvenience to producers, subject to routine inspection.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Trimbak Damodhar Raipurkar v. Assaram Hiraman Patil AIR 1966 SC 1758; 1962 Supp 1 SCR 700 |
Statute is not retrospective merely because it affects existing rights; distinction between existing and vested rights. | Used to reject the plea that levy could not cover pre-notification stocks. |
| West v. Gwynne (1911) 2 Ch D 1 | General statutory language applies to transactions existing at enactment unless expressly restricted. | Quoted (through Trimbak Damodhar) to support application of levy to existing stock. |
| Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1974) 1 SCC 468; AIR 1974 SC 366 |
Reasonable price control leaving some profit does not violate Art. 19(1)(g); losses to some producers do not per se make restrictions unreasonable. | Cited to uphold validity of controlled price. |
| Prag Ice & Oil Mills v. Union of India (1978) 3 SCC 459; AIR 1978 SC 1296 |
Consumer interest is the paramount consideration in price-control measures. | Reinforced that consumer welfare justifies the levy scheme. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court found no breach of Article 19(1)(g) because the levy and price-control measures are reasonable restrictions serving the public interest of equitable sugar distribution. Article 14 was held inapplicable as the measures were neither arbitrary nor excessive.
On retrospectivity, relying on Trimbak Damodhar and West v. Gwynne, the Court held that the notifications validly governed sugar in stock once they came into force, regardless of production date.
Regarding price fixation, the Court invoked Shree Meenakshi Mills and Prag Ice & Oil Mills to emphasise that consumer interest outweighs individual producer loss; mere allegation of loss does not render the price unreasonable.
The Court accepted that the certificate requirement caused inconvenience, but in light of the Attorney-General’s undertaking to delete the offending sub-clauses and permit free sale of non-levy sugar subject to routine inspection, it treated the grievance as substantially addressed. The interim stay was continued until the sub-clauses are withdrawn.
The Court also recommended that the Government (i) consider measures to soften the rigour of the orders, (ii) ensure proper storage and swift distribution of levy sugar, and (iii) grant a minimal hearing to crusher owners before future price fixation.
Holding and Implications
Petitions dismissed.
The levy and price-control scheme was upheld as constitutionally valid. However, by securing the Government’s undertaking to withdraw the disputed certificate provisions, the Court alleviated practical difficulties faced by producers. The decision affirms established principles on price control and non-retrospectivity without creating new precedent, but directly impacts the parties by confirming the levy’s legality while permitting freer sale of the non-levy portion once the specified sub-clauses are withdrawn.
S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J.— Having heard counsel for the parties at great length we are satisfied that there is no violation of the fundamental right of the petitioners enshrined in Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India nor is Article 14 attracted to the facts of the present case. There is, therefore, no good ground to entertain the petitions. We would, however, like to add that on the materials placed before us the government may consider the desirability of adopting such measures as may soften the rigours of the impugned orders which, though not arbitrary or excessive so as to violate Article 14 or 19, do merit some consideration by the government in order to effectuate the policy under which the impugned notification was made.
2. There are, however, two arguments urged before us which need special mention. In the first place it was submitted that in the U.P cases the order impugned imposing a levy on the khandsari produced by the petitioners cannot have any retrospective operation so as to apply to the stock of sugar manufactured prior to the date of the order and would apply only to the sugar produced after the coming into force of the impugned notification. So far as this argument is concerned we find no substance in the same because it is not a question of retrospectivity of the statute but its actual working. Once the notification imposing the levy was made it will obviously apply to stock of khandsari produced by the petitioners either before or after the order. This principle has been clearly laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Trimbak Damodhar Raipurkar v. Assaram Hiraman Patil AIR 1966 SC 1758, 1962 Supp 1 SCR 700 where Gajendragadkar, J. speaking for the court regarding the scope of a Rent Act and amendment in Rent Act observed as follows:
“In this connection it is relevant to distinguish between an existing right and a vested right. Where a statute operates in future it cannot be said to be retrospective merely because within the sweep of its operation all existing rights are included.”
3. This Court followed the dictum of Buckley, L.J in the case of West v. Gwynne (1911) 2 Ch D 1. In the aforesaid case Buckley, L.J while construing an amendment in the Act by which the contract was governed observed as follows:
“The Act of 1881 thus expressed that in the case of leases made either before or after the commencement of the Act a covenant not to assign without licence should be enforceable just as before.... This section is to be read as if it were contained in the Act of 1881, and is dealing with a subject-matter mentioned in the Act of 1881, and as to which there is in that Act a provision that the enactment shall apply to leases made either before or after the commencement of the Act.”
Hardy, M.R in a concurring judgment while construing second amendment in Section 14 of the Conveyancing Act pointed out thus:
“In the first place, the language of the section is perfectly general, ‘in all leases,’ and there is nothing in the section itself to confine it to leases subsequent to the Act.
Almost every statute affects rights which would have been in existence but for the statute.”
In these circumstances, therefore, once the notification for imposing the levy was made it will naturally apply to the stock of sugar which was with the petitioners irrespective of the fact that it was manufactured before or after the Order.
4. It was next strongly contended that in fixation of the price of levy sugar the government has not taken into consideration the fact that the petitioners would undergo a serious loss because the price would not be sufficient even to cover their manufacturing cost. We are, however, unable to agree with this argument. The policy of price control has for its dominant object equitable distribution and availability of the commodity at fair price so as to benefit the consumers. It is manifest that individual interests, however, precious they may be must yield to the larger interest of the community, namely, in the instant case, the large body of the consumers of sugar. In fact, even if the petitioners have to bear some loss there can be no question of the restrictions imposed on the petitioners being unreasonable. In Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1974) 1 SCC 468, AIR 1974 SC 366, (1974) 2 SCR 398 this Court observed as follows:
“If fair price is to be fixed leaving a reasonable margin of profit, there is never any question of infringement of fundamental right to carry on business by imposing reasonable restrictions...
In determining the reasonableness of a restriction imposed by law in the field of industry, trade or commerce, it has to be remembered that the mere fact that some of those who are engaged in these are alleging loss after the imposition of law will not render the law unreasonable”
(emphasis supplied)
Similar view was taken by this Court in the case of Prag Ice & Oil Mills v. Union of India (1978) 3 SCC 459, AIR 1978 SC 1296, (1978) 3 SCR 293 where the court speaking through Beg, C.J, observed as follows:
“It has also to be remembered that the object is to secure equitable distribution and availability at fair prices so that it is the interest of the consumer and not of the producer which is the determining factor in applying any objective tests at any particular time.”
5. In this view of the matter the primary consideration in the fixation of price would be the interest of the consumers rather than that of the producers. Moreover, we think that since the petitioners are allowed to sell freely at any rate they like the remaining fifty per cent of sugar (after excluding the fifty per cent which they have to give for levy) as also the produce by the second and third processes, the loss if any caused to the petitioners would be minimal.
6. Lastly, it was urged that sub-clause (5) — which is sub-clause (3) in the notification issued by the Madhya Pradesh Government — in the impugned notification issued by the U.P Government is extremely arbitrary inasmuch as by insisting on certificates it deprived the petitioners of the free sale of sugar of the remaining amount of fifty per cent as also the khandsari produced by second and third processes. We see some force in this argument but the Attorney-General frankly conceded that he will see that no inconvenience on this score is caused to the petitioners. He gave an undertaking to the court that he will get the respective sub-clauses (5) and (3) of the impugned orders of the U.P and Madhya Pradesh Governments deleted or withdrawn so as to allow the petitioners to sell the remaining amount of sugar as also the stock produced by the second and third processes without any hitch or hindrance. This will, however, be subject to routine and quick inspection. In view of this undertaking, therefore we feel that a substantial part of the grievances of the petitioners would be removed. To be on the safe side, however we allow the stay granted in all the petitions to continue until the provisions of respective sub-clauses (3) and (5) passed by the State Government concerned are withdrawn.
7. We may also emphasise the fact that the amount of sugar taken by the government through levy should be properly stored and duly protected from rain and rot and be despatched to the various control depots expeditiously in order to ensure a quick and equitable distribution of the commodity amongst the people at moderate rates.
8. The Government may also consider the desirability of giving a bare minimum hearing to the representative of the owners of the cane crushers in future before fixing the rate at which the levy is taken from the owners so as to see that the owners of the crushers are not put to such great loss that they are completely wiped out from business.
9. With these observations the petitions are dismissed.
Alert