High Court · 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 21.10.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYAANDTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMYW.P. NO.5665 OF 2007ANDW.V.M.P. NO. 1 OF 2007M.Shyamala Ammal.. Petitioner- Vs -1. The Secretary (FPD) Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food & Public Distribution Government of India Krishi Bhavan New Delhi 110 001.2. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Secretary to Govt. Dept. of Agriculture Fort St. George Chennai.3. The Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner of Tamil Nadu Chennai 600 035.4. The Collector Cuddalore District Cuddalore.5. EID Parry (I) Ltd. Nellikuppam by its General Manager Nellikuppam Panruti Taluk Cuddalore District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. EID Parry Sugar Cane Suppliers Association rep. By its President M.Arunachalam Reddiyar Street, Pagandai Post Keelkavarapattu (via) Nellikuppam... Respondents (R-6 impleaded vide order of Court dt. 21.10.09 in W.V.M.P. No.2 of 2007)Writ Petition filed under Article 226 constitution of India forthe issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 5th respondent tomake payment to all its registered ryots at the statutory minimumrate fixed for 2003-2004 (Rs.730/= per tonne for 8.5% return withproportionate rate based on the percentage of return), consequentlydirecting respondents 1 to 4 to ensure that 5th respondent pays thedifference between the amount already paid and statutory minimumprice fixed for 2003-2004 with interest at 15% per annum from1.10.2003 and to pay cane price every year within 14 days of cuttingas stated therein.For Petitioner : Mrs.Manjula BaskarFor Respondents: Mr. C.Natarajan, SC, for Mr. N.Inbarajan for R-5 Ms. C.Uma for Ms. Gladys Daniel for R-6For Respondents : Mr.D.Srinivasan AGP for R2,3 & 4ORDER(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.)The writ petition was preferred by the petitioner for issuanceof a writ of mandamus directing the 5th respondent to make paymentsto all its registered cane growers at the statutory minimum rate forthe year 2003-2004, i.e., Rs.730/MT for 8.5% return withproportionate rate based on the percentage of return. Furtherprayer was made to direct the respondent to pay interest @ 15% p.a.for the period from October, 2003.2. The writ petition was preferred in the year 2007. Thematter relates to payment of statutory minimum price to the canegrowers, who supply sugarcane to the 5th respondent company. The 5threspondent company has filed a counter affidavit and has taken pleathat it has already acted in the interest of the cane growers. Itis stated that the Government fixed the statutory price of sugarcanefor the year 2003-04 at Rs.730/MT with 8.5% return. That waschallenged before this Court in W.P. No.1569/04. In the said case, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ by interim order dated 3rd Feb., 2004, this Court directed to payRs.655/MT with 8.5% recovery. The said case is still pending. But,in the meantime, the 5th respondent has paid the amount in favour ofthe cane growers, who supplied sugarcane for the period 2003-04 andsubsequent period. For the period 2003-04, a sum of Rs.869/MT hasbeen paid by the 5th respondent, i.e., on the basis of thecalculation of Rs.735/MT with 10.10% return. The following are thedate with regard to price fixed and payment made under the controlorder :-Sl.No.SugarYearClause 3/APrice(Rs.)Notfn.No. &DateRate/mtapplicabletoRespon(Rs.) SAPRef.Per/MtApplicabletoRespon (Rs.)5APriceannounced byC.O.Sugars(Rs.)Notfn.No. &DateRate/mtapplicabletoRespon(Rs.)Actualpricepaidby therespond (Rs.)101-02620.50G.S.R.867(E)ESS.COMM./Sugarcane27.11.2001693.50Nil0.00Rc.No.12264/Cane1/2005-9 dt.2.5.2006693.5765.00202-03645.00G.S.R.821(E)ESS.COMM./Sugarcane12.12.2002683.00Nil0.00Rc.No.12264/Cane1/2005-9 dt.2.5.2006683.00735.00303-04730.00G.S.R. 44(E)ESS.COMM./Sugarcane14.01.2004866.00Nil866.00869.0003-04655.00As percourtorder778.30Nil9.80Rc.No.12264/Cane1/2005-9 dt.2.5.2006788.10869.00 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 404-05745.00G.S.R. 92(E)ESS.COMM./Sugarcane24.02.2005806.60NilNotfinalised915.00505-06795.00G.S.R.1727(E)ESS.COMM./Sugarcane22.03.2006795.00R.C.No.31254/Cane-1/2005Dt.07/02/061014.00Notfinalised1015.00606-07802.50G.S.R.766(E)ESS.COMM./Sugarcane22.12.2006802.50R.C.No.25646/Cane-1/06Dt12/12/061025.00Notfinalised1026.003. Learned counsel for the petitioner while accepted thatamount for the period 2003-04 has already been paid at the rateprescribed by the State, it was submitted that the amount for theperiod October, 2003, was paid on the basis of old rate fixed anddifference on the basis of the new rate was paid subsequently. Itis for the said reason he requested the court to direct the 5threspondent to pay interest on the difference amount paid for themonth of October, 2003.According to learned counsel for the 5th respondent, the rate ofcane is fixed by the Central Government for the period uptoSeptember of the calendar year. The rate for the period Octoberonwards is fixed sometime in October. In the year 2003, no rate wasfixed for the month of October, 2003, which was subsequently fixedby the Central Government sometime in January, 2004. In absence ofsuch notification by the Central Government, payment for the monthof October, 2003, was made on the basis of the old rate, i.e.,Rs.735/= per MT with 10.10% return. Subsequently, when the new ratewas prescribed in January, 2004, the difference amount was paid,which comes around Rs.53/= per MT. He referred to an additionalcounter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent wherein the followingstatement has been made :-“(2) This respondent agrees to settle thestatutory interest for the delay in settlement ofdifferential sum of Rs.53/= per MT for canepurchases of October, 2003, for the period betweenthe due date in October, 2003 and the date of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ payment out, within the period as directed by thisHon'ble Court.”4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused therecord. From the stand taken by the 5th respondent it will be clearthat there was no laches on the part of the 5th respondent, whosettled the dues on the basis of the Central Government'sprescription. For October, 2003, the 5th respondent has given avalid explanation for not paying the difference amount in October,2003, which was paid subsequently in the beginning of 2004. In thisbackground, this Court is not inclined to pass any order against the5th respondent. However, taking into consideration the facts andcircumstances and the undertaking given by the 5th respondent tosettle the statutory interest for the delay in settlement ofdifferential sum of Rs.53/= per MT for the cane purchases in themonth of October, 2003, for the period between the due date inOctober 2003 and the date of payment out, we direct the 5threspondent to pay such interest within a period of one month.The writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, W.V.M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed. But there shall be no order as to costs.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar GLNTo1. The Secretary (FPD) Ministry of Consumer Affairs Food & Public Distribution Government of India Krishi Bhavan New Delhi 110 001.2. The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Dept. of Agriculture Fort St. George Chennai. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3. The Director of Sugar and Cane Commissioner of Tamil Nadu Chennai 600 035.4. The Collector Cuddalore District Cuddalore.+3ccs to Mr.R.Gururaj, Advocate Sr 55460+1cc to Mr.N.Inbarajan, Advocate Sr 55456+1cc to Govt. Pleader Sr 55535MS(CO)km/11.11. W.P. NO. 5665 OF 2007