MAHARASHTRA RAJYA SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA SANGH LTD. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1998] 2 S.C.R. 1183 · Decided: 27-04-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

T 
MAHARASHTRA RAJY A SAHAKARI 
A 
SAKHAR KARKHANA SANGH LTD. AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
v. 
ST ATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
APRIL 27, I 998 
B 
[G.N. RAY AND M. SRINIVASAN, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Sugar Factories (Reservation of Areas and Regulation of 
Crushing and Sugarcane Supply) Order, 1984 as amended by Maharashtra 
Sugar Factories (Reservation of Areas of Crushing and Sugarcane Supply) C 
(Amendment) Order, 1997 : 
Clause 3(2)-Sugar Factories-Reservation of areas-Cane grower 
not member of a Co-operative Sugar factory-Provisions allowing him to 
supply sugarcane to any factory of his choice-Cane grower being member 
of Co-operative Sugar factory-Provisions requiring him to supply sugarcane D 
to the co-operative sugar factory in ratio of shares held by him and allowing 
him to supply excess sugarcane to any factory of his choice-Held the 
provisions are not unreasonable-Not vitiated by male fides-State 
Government empowered to pass the Orders-Amendment order not in conflict 
with the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966-State Government not acted E 
arbitrarily-Nor is there any discrimination against factory owners-
Amendment made pursuant to a policy decision to protect interests of farmers 
on one hand and co-operative societies on the other-Hence no interference 
required-Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 - Clause 6. 
The Government of Maharashtra, in order to regulate the supply of F 
cane to sugar factories and minimum price to cane growers, issued 
Maharashtra Sugar Factories (Reservation of Areas and Regulation of 
crushing and Sugarcane Supply) Order, 1984. Clause 3 thereof reserved 
cane growing areas for respective sl!gar factories, with a prohibition that no 
sugar factory should purchase cane or accept supplies thereof from cane G 
growers except from the area reserved for that factory. Clause 5 provided 
that in the circumstances enumerated therein the permit officer would allow 
a sugar factory to purchase cane or to accept supplies of cane from cane 
growers from areas other than the area reserved for it. The 1984 Order was 
challenged before the High Court in writ petitions and ultimately this Court, 
while upholding the validity of the Order in Maharashtra Rajya Sahkari H 
1183 
1184 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 2 S.C.R. 
A Sakkar Karkhana Sangh Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, ( 1995( 3 SCR 
377, observed that Government may take appropriate steps to amend clause 
5 of 1984 order so as to protect the cane growers and to appoint a committee 
of experts to improve the price structure. Accordingly, the State Government 
appointed an Expert Committee, but the said committee did not go into the 
B aspect of zoning. 
c 
Pursuant to an agitation by the farmers, the Government appointed 
another Committee to take a decision on zoning, and on the recommendations 
of the said committee, the Government of Maharashtra, in exercise of powers 
under clauses 6 and 9 of the Sugarcane (Control) Order 1966, passed the 
Maharashtra Sugar Factories (Reservation of Areas of Crushing and 
Sugarcane Supply) (Amendment) Order, 1997, introducing certain provisions 
to clause 3(2) of the 1984 order. The effect of the Amendment Order 1997 
was that those cane growers, who were not members of cooperative society 
would be free to supply their cane to any factory of their choice; and a 
member of a co-operative society would supply cane to the co-operative sugar 
D factory, in the ratio of shares held by him and would be free to sell excess 
cane to any factory of his choice. This Amendment Order was challenged by 
the appellants Maharashtra Rajya Sahkari Sakkar Karkhana Sangh Ltd. 
and others by filing a writ petition before the High Court, which dismissed 
the writ petition holding that the Amendment order was not in any way illegal 
E or unreasonable and the order would appear to ensure better sugarcane 
price to the farmers who were not members of any cooperative sugar factory. 
Aggrieved, the appellants filed the present appeals. Later the two transfer 
petitions were also filed for transferring to this Court some other matters 
pending before the High Court. 
p 
It was contended for the appellants that the State Government being a 
delegatee from the Central Government, the Amendment Order being passed 
in exercise of power conferred under clause (1) of Clause 6 of the Sugar 
1" 
(Control) Order, 1966 could not run counter to Clause 6(2) there of; that 
the State Government ex.ercised its power arbitrarily and discriminated 
against

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.