M/S. Oil Palm Developers And ... vs State Of Andhra Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 2279 AP

                                                                                             1

               HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

                        MAIN CASE: W.A.No.313 of 2021
                                PROCEEDINGS SHEET

Sl.     DATE                                   ORDER                                       OFFICE
No.                                                                                         NOTE


4.    06.07.2021                   (Through Video-Conferencing)

                          Heard    Mr.    B.Adinarayana      Rao,     learned    Senior
                   Counsel for the appellants.
                          Also heard Ms. Nischala Sidda Reddy, learned
                   Government      Pleader    for     Agriculture     &     Cooperation
                   appearing for respondent Nos.1 & 2, Mr. M.S.Prasad,

learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.5, Mr. P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No.6.

Section 13(1) of the Andhra Pradesh Oil Palm (Regulation of Production and Processing) Act, 1993, empowers the Government to fix the price of Oil Palm Fresh Fruit Bunches (FFB) or authorize the Oil Palm Commissioner to do so, subject to the guidelines issued from time to time. The Government had fixed the Oil Extraction Ratio percentage (OER%) as 18.682 for the Oil Year 2020-21 i.e., from November 2020 to October 2021, so as to avoid loss to the farmers as well as to stop cross purchase of FFBs by oil processing units in the State.

The aforesaid order was put to challenge by 7 petitioners. Petitioner No.1 is the Association of Oil Palm Developers and Processors in Andhra Pradesh, and petitioner Nos.2 to 7 are Oil Palm Developer and Processor Companies dealing with Oil Palm.

The learned single Judge by the judgment under assailment, negatived the challenge and held that the available evidence has shown that the respondents had adopted a reasonable method based upon certain tangible reasons. It was also noted in the impugned judgment that price fixation is essentially a legislative function of the Government, and that the Court has very limited role in the matter.

Out of 7 writ petitioners, 4 writ petitioners have challenged the aforesaid judgment of the learned single

Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE No. NOTE

Judge, by filing the present writ appeal.

Mr. B. Adinarayana Rao, learned Senior Counsel has, amongst other submissions, contends hat OER as fixed by the State/respondents as 18.682% for the Oil year 2020-21 from November 2020 to October 2021 is without any basis and it would appear from the G.O.RT.No.22 dated 19.01.2021 that the same was decided only to ostensibly avoid loss to the farmers as well as cross purchase of Fresh Fruit Bunches by oil processing units. He submits that the Commissioner of Horticulture had suggested OER of 16.08% and, therefore, fixation of OER percentage at 18.682% is, ex facie, without any basis. He submits that the reasoning assigned by the learned single Judge that the procedure adopted by the State/respondents is reasonable, is not correct and such finding is contrary to the materials on record. In essence, the learned Senior Counsel submits that fixation of OER at 18.682% is based on irrelevant considerations, while not taking into consideration relevant considerations. Accordingly, he submits that the matter requires consideration and during the pendency of the appeal, he prays to permit the appellants to pay on the basis of OER of 17.22% as was fixed for the Oil Year 2017- 18, and which was being paid for the subsequent years.

Mr. M.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. P.Veera Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, on the other hand, submit that in the attending facts and circumstances, even if the matter is taken up for further consideration, no interim order as prayed for by the appellants may be granted, and they urge that the appellants may be directed to pay on the basis of OER at 18.682%. They also submit that it is not correct that the appellants were making payment on the basis of 17.22% as submitted by Mr. B.Adinarayana Rao.

Issue notice, returnable in six weeks.

Pending further consideration of the appeal, we direct that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the appellants, they shall pay on the basis of OER 18.682% and if the appellants succeed in the appeal, the

Sl. DATE ORDER OFFICE No. NOTE

appellants will be at liberty to adjust the excess amount, if any paid, as against future payments to be made.

             ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, CJ              NINALA JAYASURYA, J


             GM


Sl.   DATE       ORDER   OFFICE
No.                       NOTE