- Case
- RAJU @ DEVAPPA ANNA SHETTI AND ORS v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. SECRETARY DEPT. OF COOPERATION AND ORS (Bombay High Court, 17-03-2025)
- Law
- Constitution of India, Essential Commodities Act, Maharashtra Regulation of Sugarcane Price (Supplied to Factories) Act.
Facts: A batch of writ petitions challenged a Government Resolution (GR) issued by the State of Maharashtra regarding the payment of sugarcane prices, specifically the Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP), to farmers. The petitioners, including sugarcane farmers and sugar mills, argued that the GR, which altered the payment schedule and calculation method for FRP, was contrary to the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 ("SCO 1966") issued by the Central Government and the Maharashtra Regulation of Sugarcane Price (Supplied to Factories) Act, 2013. The State GR allowed for FRP calculation based on the current year's sugar recovery rate and payment in two installments, deducting harvesting and transportation costs. The petitioners contended this delayed full payment and reduced the amount received by farmers.
Procedural Posture: The case came before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay via writ petitions filed by sugarcane farmers and sugar mills challenging the validity and legality of the State Government Resolution.
Issue: Did the State Government's GR contravene the Central Government's SCO 1966 and the State's 2013 Act regarding the determination and payment of Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) to sugarcane farmers, particularly concerning the timing and method of payment?
Holding: Yes, the High Court quashed the impugned Government Resolution, holding it violative of Clause 3(1) and Clause 3(3) of the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, read with Section 5(1) of the Maharashtra Regulation of Sugarcane Price (Supplied to Factories) Act, 2013.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the State GR imposed conditions alien to the SCO 1966, creating a parallel procedure for FRP determination. The Central Government's mandate under Clause 3(1) of the SCO 1966, recognized by the State Government, could not be altered by prescribing a novel procedure. The Court emphasized that the FRP determined by the Central Government should be paid within 14 days of sugarcane supply, as mandated by Clause 3(3) of the SCO 1966. The State Government's attempt to determine FRP based on the season's sugar production and deduct harvesting/transportation costs upfront was deemed an arbitrary exercise of power, conflicting with the central legislation and the rights of farmers to timely payment. The court also invoked the principle of "Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius", stating that the power to fix mill-wise FRP must be exercised only for that purpose and in that manner, not to subvert the central mandate.
