WEST U.P. SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION & ORS. versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 9 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 22-04-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Reference answered
cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
WEST U.P. SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION & ORS.
v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7508 of 2005)
APRIL 22, 2020
[ARUN MISHRA, INDIRA BANERJEE, VINEET SARAN,
M. R. SHAH AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act,
1953 – s.16 – Authority of State of U.P. to fix the State Advised
Price (SAP) paid over and above the minimum price fixed by Central
Government – Matter referred by three Judge Bench having noted
conflict between two Constitution Bench judgments, Ch. Tika Ramji
& Others, Etc. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Others [1956] SCR 393
and U.P. Cooperative Cane Unions Federations v. West U.P. Sugar Mills
Association and Others (2004) 5 SCC 430 – Held: Factual matrix and
the relevant provisions which fell for consideration in Tika Ramji
and in U.P. Coop. Cane Unions Federations case were altogether
different – Concept of fixation of minimum price by Central Govt.
vis-à-vis SAP to be fixed by State Government under the 1953 Act,
never fell for consideration in Ch. Tika Ram – While, in U.P. Coop.
Cane Unions Federations it was rightly held that there is no
inconsistency or repugnancy in fixing the remunerative/advised
price by the State Govt. and the “minimum price” fixed by Central
Govt. – And that if the price fixed by the State Govt. is higher than
that fixed by the Central Govt., there will be no inconsistency or
repugnancy as it is possible for both the orders to operate
simultaneously and to comply with both of them – View taken by the
Constitution Bench in U.P. Coop. Cane Unions Federations is the
correct law – No conflict between the two decisions in Tika Ramji
and U.P. Coop. Cane Unions Federations case – Matter not required
to be referred to a larger Bench of seven Judges – U.P. Sugarcane
(Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Order, 1954 – Sugarcane
(Control) Order, 1955 – Clause 3 – Essential Commodities Act, 1955
– s.3(2)(c) – Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 – Clause 3 –
Constitution of India – Art.254; List III of Seventh Schedule –
Interpretation of Statutes.
[2020] 9 S.C.R. 530
530
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
531
Constitution of India – List III of Seventh Schedule – Entries
33 and 34 – Power to fix price of sugarcane – Held: By virtue of
Entries 33 and 34, List III, Seventh Schedule, both the Central
Government as well as the State Government have power to fix the
price of sugarcane – Central Government having exercised the power
and fixed the minimum price, the State Government cannot fix the
minimum price of sugarcane – However, it is always open for the
State Government to fix the advised price which is always higher
than the minimum price – U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply
and Purchase) Act, 1953 – s.16 – Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966.
Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 – Held: 1966 Order issued
u/s.16, 1953 Act confers power upon the State Government to fix
the remunerative/advised price at which sugarcane can be bought
or sold – This price shall always be higher than the minimum price
fixed by Central Government – U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of
Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 – s.16.
U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act,
1953 – s.16 – If repugnant to s.3(2)(c), 1955 Act and Clause 3 of
1966 Order – Held: No – Essential Commodities Act, 1955 – s.3(2)(c)
– Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 – Clause 3.
Constitution of India – Art.254; List III of Seventh Schedule
– Repugnancy in laws – Held: Question of repugnancy in List III,
Seventh Schedule, where both the Union and the States have the
power to enact a law, arises only where there is an actual
irreconcilable conflict between the two laws.
Answering the reference, the Court
HELD: 1.1 From the legislative history and the relevant
provisions of Essential Commodities Act, 1955, U.P. Sugarcane
(Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953, U.P. Sugarcane
(Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Order, 1954, Sugarcane
(Control) Order, 1955, Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 which
fell for consideration by this Court in the case of Tika Ramji and
U.P. Coop. Cane Unions Federations, it appears that as such there
has been a sea change in the law. [Para 9][562-C]
1.2 The question involved in Ch. Tika Ramji & Ors., etc.
v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. AIR 1956 SC 676 was
WEST U.P. SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION & ORS. v.
THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
532
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 9 S.C.R.
concerning the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Su
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.