Gurdeyal Singh & Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 8362 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Chief Justice's Court
 
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 14926 of 2021
 
Petitioner :- Gurdeyal Singh & Ors.
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Sugar Industries,Lko.& Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Prakash Shukla,Alok Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra,Paavan Awasthi

And

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 14925 of 2021

Petitioner :- Jhau Lal & Ors.

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Sugarcane,Lko.& Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Verma,Shravan Kumar 'Verma'

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra,Paavan Awasthi

And

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 15044 of 2021

Petitioner :- Suresh Kumar & Anr.

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Sugarcane,Lko.& Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Asarey Verma

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra,Paavan Awasthi

And

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 14959 of 2021

Petitioner :- Balram & Ors.

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Cane Commissioner,Lko.& Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Mishra,Vivek Kumar Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra,Illegible

And

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 15029 of 2021

Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar & Ors.

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Cane Commissioner,Lko.& Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Mishra,Vivek Kumar Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra,Illegible

And

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 15139 of 2021

Petitioner :- Daljeet Singh & Ors.

Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Sugar Industries Lko. &Ors

Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Prakash Shukla,Alok Srivastava

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra,Paavan Awasthi

And

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 15189 of 2021

Petitioner :- Dev Narain Verma & Ors.

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Cane Commissioner Lko. & Ors.

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajaiy Kumar Mishra,Adarsh Kumar Maurya

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gaurav Mehrotra

Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

1. The writ petitions have been filed to seek payment of cane price supplied by the petitioners to the Bajaj Hindustan Sugar Mill Limited (hereinafter referred to as, the Company). It is in the year 2020-2021.

2. Shri Satish Chandra Mishra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Company has given a copy of statement to show payment of due amount to few petitioners leaving others.

3. The aforesaid statement shows that in many cases, the entire due amount has already been paid while in remaining cases, part payment has been made and remaining amount is still to be paid, as indicated.

4. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the Company, on the instructions, undertakes to pay due amount to all the petitioners within a period of four weeks. The petitioners have shown their satisfaction on the aforesaid.

5. The issue of interest on the delayed payment remains. It is for the reason that as per the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as, the Act of 1953), the payment towards the cane price was to be made immediately and for that Section 17 of the Act of 1953 is being quoted hereunder for ready reference:-

" Payment of cane price :- (1) The occupier of a factory shall make such provision for speedy payment of the price of cane purchased by him as may be prescribed.

(2) Upon the delivery of cane the occupier of a factory shall be liable to pay immediately the price of the cane so supplied, together with all other sums connected therewith,

(3) Where the person liable under sub-Section (2) is in default in making the payment of the price for period exceeding fifteen days from the date of delivering, he shall also pay interest at a rate of 7 1/2 per cent per annum from the said date of delivering, but the Cane Commissioner may, in any case, direct, with the approval of the State Government, that no interest shall be paid or be paid at such reduced rate as he may fix;

[Provided that in relation to default in payment of price of cane purchased after the commencement of this proviso, for the figures' 7 1/2' the 'figures 12' shall be deemed substituted]

(4) The Cane Commissioner shall forward to the Collector a certificate under his signature specifying the amount of arrears on account of the price of cane plus interest, if any, due from the occupier and the Collector, on receipt of such certificate, shall proceed to recover from such occupier the amount specified therein as if it were an arrears of land revenue.

(5)(a) Without prejudice to the provisions of the foregoing sub-sections, where the owner or any other person having control over the affairs of the factory or any other person competent in that behalf enters into an agreement with a bank under which the bank agrees to give advance to him [on the security of sugar or ethnol (directly produced from the sugarcane juice or B-Heavy Molasses)] produced or to be produced in the factory, the said owner or other person shall provide in such agreement that [a percentage determined by such authority and in such manner as may be prescribed] of the total amount of advance shall be set apart and be available only for repayment to cane-growers or their co-operative societies on account of the price of sugarcane purchased or to be purchased for the factory during the current crushing season from those cane-growers or from or through those societies, and interest thereon and, such societies' commission in respect thereof.

(b) Every such owner or other person as aforesaid shall send a copy of every such agreement to the collector within a week from the date on which it is entered into. "

6. It is not in dispute that there is delay in making the payment. The Counsel for the Company has given a justification of delay in payment. It is in regard to certain litigation with the State Government and judgment therein. Compliance thereof is yet to be made by the State. It is also in reference to the arrangement made by the consortium of fourteen Banks. The amount received by the Company out of the sale of sugar and their products apart from generation of electricity and other products comes in the escrow account monitored by the State Government. Payment to the agriculturists is also made from the excrow account.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners have contested the aforesaid position. It is submitted that let Company make an application before the Cane Commissioner who may decide the issue of interest within two months from the date of receipt of the application by the Company.

8. Learned Counsel for the Company has no objection to it other than for the time suggested by the petitioners. It is submitted that this Court may give a direction to the Cane Commissioner to decide the issue of interest within a reasonable time.

9. In view of the facts narrated above, this Court is not required to enter into the controversy in view of the agreement between the parties. Accordingly, all these petitions are disposed of with the following directions:-

i) Those petitioners, who have already received due payment may claim interest subject to the direction in subsequent paras and those petitioners who have not received due amount towards cane price would be paid within a period of four weeks from today, as per undertaking given by the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Company.

(ii) So far as the interest on the delayed payment is concerned, the matter would be decided by the Cane Commissioner on the receipt of the copy of this order along with an application by the Company. Both the parties would be provided opportunity of hearing by the Cane Commissioner who would decide it expeditiously and in any case not beyond a period of four months from the date of receipt of application by the respondent Company, to be submitted within four weeks from today. It is however, made clear that in case application is not submitted by the petitioners in regard to interest within the period given above, it will be presumed that they are in agreement to pay interest at the rate prescribed under the Act of 1953.

10. This order has been passed on the undertaking of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Company and on agreement between the parties, thus would not be taken as a precedent.

Order Date :- 22.07.2021

Ashish