- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Others v. Triveni Engg. Works Ltd. And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The opinion concerns the fixation of the minimum price of levy sugar for the year 1982-83. An order of the Allahabad High Court dated 17-3-1998 had accepted a challenge (via a writ petition filed by the respondent) to the price fixation. The matter reached the Supreme Court by appeal, in which the Court first condoned delay and granted leave. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court’s decision could stand in light of prior Supreme Court decisions upholding the same 1982-83 price fixation.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the fixation of minimum price of levy sugar for the year 1982-83 was invalid on the ground that factors in clause 5-A of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966 were not taken into consideration.
- Whether the Allahabad High Court’s order dated 17-3-1998 (setting aside/upsetting the 1982-83 price fixation) could be sustained despite prior Supreme Court decisions upholding that price fixation.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents’ counsel contended that the price fixation was bad because, according to an admission by the Union of India in an affidavit filed before the Allahabad High Court, the factors set out in clause 5-A of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966 were not taken into consideration.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Modi Industries Ltd. v. Union of India (decided on 20-2-1996) | The fixation of minimum price of levy sugar for the year 1982-83 had already been upheld by the Supreme Court. | Relied upon as authority that the 1982-83 levy sugar minimum price fixation had been upheld, supporting reversal of the High Court order. |
| Shri Malaprabha Coop. Sugar Factory Ltd. v. Union Of India (1997) 10 SCC 216 | A three-Judge Bench did not accept the challenge to the correctness of the 20-2-1996 order relating to 1982-83 price fixation; it also observed that omission of one unfavourable element does not justify omission of another favourable, relevant element. | Used to reinforce that the earlier upholding of the 1982-83 price fixation stood and that attempted challenges to its correctness were not accepted. |
| Shri Malaprabha Coop. Sugar Factory Ltd. v. Union Of India (1994) 1 SCC 648 | Referenced within the quoted observations to state that the 20-2-1996 order explicitly noted the matter was not covered by the decision in (1994) 1 SCC 648. | Not applied directly to decide the appeal; mentioned as part of the quoted reasoning distinguishing what the 20-2-1996 order did and did not cover. |
| Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (decided on 19-8-1998) | A two-Judge Bench followed the decision in Transferred Case (Civil) No. 9 of 1990 and, after considering an additional affidavit dated 11-6-1998 explaining price determination for 1982-83, upheld the fixation of price. | Invoked to show that even after considering detailed affidavit material on methodology, the 1982-83 price fixation was upheld; this supported rejecting the respondents’ challenge. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court reasoned that the minimum price fixation for levy sugar for the year 1982-83 had already been upheld by the Supreme Court in multiple decisions. It noted first that the 20-2-1996 decision (Modi Industries Ltd. v. Union of India) upheld the 1982-83 fixation, and that an attempt to question that decision before a three-Judge Bench in Shri Malaprabha Coop. Sugar Factory Ltd. v. Union Of India (1997) 10 SCC 216 was not accepted.
The Court further relied on Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (19-8-1998), where the Court had considered an additional affidavit dated 11-6-1998 by a Joint Secretary of the Government of India explaining the manner of determining the 1982-83 minimum price, and still upheld the fixation. Against this background, the Court declined to accept the respondents’ contention (based on an alleged admission in an affidavit before the High Court that clause 5-A factors were not considered) because the same 1982-83 fixation had already been upheld in three decisions of the Supreme Court.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED: The Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s impugned order dated 17-3-1998 and dismissed the respondent’s writ petition. The Court made no order as to costs.
The direct implication is that the fixation of the minimum price of levy sugar for the year 1982-83 stands upheld, and the High Court’s contrary order is nullified. The opinion proceeds on existing Supreme Court authority and does not indicate that any new legal principle or precedent was laid down beyond applying those prior decisions to the same price-fixation year.
1. Delay condoned.
2. Leave granted.
3. The fixation of minimum price of levy sugar for the year 1982-83 has already been upheld by this Court in Modi Industries Ltd. v. Union of India decided on 20-2-1996. The correctness of this decision came to be questioned before a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Shri Malaprabha Coop. Sugar Factory Ltd. v. Union of India (1997) 10 SCC 216 but it was not accepted and the Court made the following observations:
“13. The order that was passed by this Court on 20-2-1996 in Transferred Case (Civil) No. 9 of 1990 was in respect of levy sugar price for the year 1982-83 and, therefore, it cannot have any bearing on the fixation of price of levy sugar for the years 1975-76 to 1979-80. Moreover, this Court, while passing the said order, has clearly stated that ‘… this matter is not covered by the decision of this Court in Shri Malaprabha Coop. Sugar Factory Ltd. v. Union of India (1994) 1 SCC 648’. Even if the Government has omitted to take into consideration one unfavourable element, namely, mopping up of excess realisation it cannot justify its omission to take into consideration another relevant element which is favourable to the producer of sugar.”
4. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Bharat Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India decided on 19-8-1998, followed the decision of this Court in Transferred Case (Civil) No. 9 of 1990. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that since it was admitted by the Union of India in the affidavit filed before the Allahabad High Court that the factors set out in clause 5-A of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966 were not taken into consideration, the fixation of price was bad.
5. It may be pointed out that in Bharat Sugar Mills case the Court had taken into consideration the additional affidavit dated 11-6-1998 filed by Mr Surendra Kumar, Joint Secretary, Government of India, setting out the manner in which minimum price for levy sugar for the year 1982-83 had been determined and after taking into consideration that affidavit, the Court upheld the fixation of price.
6. In view of the above, since in this case also it is the price for the year 1982-83 which is involved, as also in view of the further (sic) that the price fixation has already been upheld in the three decisions of this Court, we are not prepared to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the fixation of minimum price for levy sugar for the year 1982-83 was not correctly fixed.
7. For the reasons stated above, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Allahabad High Court dated 17-3-1998 is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert