http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: H.S.S.K. NIYAMI AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/08/1990

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)

CITATION:  1990 AIR 2128            1990 SCR  (3) 862  1990 SCC  (4) 516        JT 1990 (3)   579  1990 SCALE  (2)286

ACT:     Essential  Commodities Act, 1955/Sugar (Control)  Order, 1963:  Section 3(3C)/Clause 6 and Notification No.  GSR  No. 463  dated  24.3.1966--Constitutional  validity  of  Section 3(3C)--Price      fixation-Zoning--Whether       legislative policy--Whether individual notice of  representation/hearing necessary   before   placing  a  party   in   a   particular zone--Absence  of  such  opportunity--Whether  violative  of principles of natural justice.     Constitution  of India, 1950: Article  31C--Validity  of Section 3(3C) of Essential Commodities Act, 1950.

HEADNOTE:     The Sugar Inquiry Committee appointed by the  Government of  India  recommended five zones for the  fixation  of  ex- factory prices of sugar, including Zone No. 1 consisting  of factories  in Maharashtra, North Mysore etc.  Accepting  the recommendation, the Government of India issued  notification in  GSR No. 463 dated March 24, 1966 and the factories  were specified  in  Schedules 2 & 3 annexed thereto.  The  appel- lants’  factories located in North Mysore, were included  in Zone No. 1.     The  appellants filed writ petitions in the  High  Court assailing  the constitutional validity of Section  3(3C)  of the  Essential  Commodities Act, 1955 and  the  Notification dated  March  24, 1966, and praying for a direction  to  the respondents to include the appellants’ factories in Zone No. 2  consisting  of  South Mysore, South  Andhra  Pradesh  and Orissa  and to fix the price at Rs. 161 per quintal for  the sugar  manufactured by the appellants’ factories.  The  writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court.     In  the  appeals  before this Court, on  behalf  of  the appellants  it was contended that the appellants’  factories were part of the entire State as was notified preceding  the notification,  that factors like price of sugarcane,  taxes, duties,  sugar recovery percentage, labour charges, cost  of production or fair return to the produce were same or  simi- lar  in the entire State but due to the notification,  which included the appellants in Zone No. 1, they were put to huge losses, and that the appel- 863

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

lants  were entitled to a notice and hearing before  placing them in Zone No. 1 and clubbing with other factories in  the State  of  Maharashtra, etc. was uneconomical and  kept  the appellants  under  loss and therefore, it was  violative  of principles of natural justice. Dismissing the appeals, this Court,     HELD:  1.  The Essential Commodities  Act,  1955  having received  the  protective  umbrella of Article  31C  of  the Constitution, read with 9th Schedule, Item No. 126,  Section 3(3C)  of  the Act cannot be held to be ultra vires  of  the fundamental  rights  enshrined under  Article  19(1)(g)  and right to property under Article 19(1)(f) as was available in the year 1968. Moreover, it is covered by a recent  decision of this Court in M/s. Shri Sitaram Sugar Company v. Union of India  & Ors., [1990] 3 SCC 223. Therefore, the point is  no longer  resintegra. Section 3(3C) is constitutionally  valid and unassailable. [865G-H; 866A]     2.1  The fixation of the price and zoning  are  integral scheme of the notification; without placing the factories in the  appropriate zone based on agro-climatic and other  eco- nomic  considerations  the proper price fixation  cannot  be made.  So, both the factors are part of the policy  decision by the government in exercise of the statutory powers.  This decision  is based on the recommendation made by  the  Sugar Commission  consisting of experts in the field of  agro-eco- nomics  who after exhaustive study and consideration of  the relevant material placed before it made the  recommendation. Thereby  it assumes the character of legislative policy.  It does not concern itself with an individual case. Once it  is concluded that the zoning system is an integral part of  the price  fixation of the sugar produced by the factories in  a particular  zone,  it  is legislative in  character  and  no individual sugar factory is entitled to a notice and hearing before  placing  the particular. factory or factories  in  a particular  zone. Moreover, the Sugar Commission  heard  the persons  desired to be heard and considered the  representa- tion  and material produced. At the stage  of  notification, the  question of further representation or hearing does  not arise  nor a feasible exercise. It is for the Government  to accept  or reject or modify the recommendation made  by  the Commission. [871A-C; 872D-E]     M/s.  Shri  Sitaram Sugar Company v. Union  of  India  & Ors., [1990] 3 SCC 223; Saraswati Industrial Syndicate  Ltd. etc.  v.  Union of India, [1975] 1 SCR 956; Prag Ice  &  Oil Mills & Anr. etc. v. Union of India, [1978] 3 SCR 293; Laxmi Khandsari  etc. etc. v. State of U. P. & Ors., [1981] 3  SCR 92 and Union of India & Anr. v. Cynamide India 864 Ltd. & Anr., [1987] 2 SCC 720 at 734 & 735, relied on.     Anakapalle  Coop. Agrl. & Industrial Society  Ltd.  etc. etc.  v. Union of India & Ors., [1973] 2 SCR  882,  referred to.     Joseph  Beauharnais v. People of the State Illinois,  96 L.Ed. 919 at 930, referred to.     Thus, zoning is a legislative act and policy. The appel- lants  are  not entitled to  individual  representation  and notice before placing them in a particular zone. [872E]     2.2 As regards right to hearing for fixation of  prices, fixation  of  price for Sugar is a  legislative  policy  and principles of natural justice would not apply. [867E]     M  Is.  Shri Sitaram Sugar Company v. Union of  India  & Ors., [ 1990] 3 SCC 223, relied on.     2.3  Some loss may be caused to individual  factory  but the  price fixation cannot be made unit-wise and it  is  not practicable  to make unit as a base to fix the price  or  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

place in a particular zone. [872H]     Anakapalle  Coop. Agrl. & Industrial Society  Ltd.  etc. etc. v. Union of India & Ors., [1973] 2 SCR 882, relied on.     2.4 In an individual case of administrative action if no counter  affidavit  is filed, an adverse  inference  can  be drawn  and  relief moulded as per given situation  but  this Court cannot interfere with the legislative policy of zoning particular factories merely because the State has omitted to file  counter  affidavit  denying the  allegations  of  cost structures  and the consequential loss that  the  appellants are being put to. [872G-F]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURSIDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  154  & 155 of 1974.     From  the  Judgment  and Order dated  19.4.1973  of  the Mysore High Court in W.P. Nos. 356 and 1215 of 1968. S.S. Javeli and B.R. Agarwala for the Appellants.     N.S.  Hegde, Anand Haksar and Mrs. Sushma Suri  for  the Respondents. 865 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     K. RAMASWAMY, J. These two appeals, on certificate under Article 136 of the Constitution, are by two sugar  factories situated in Northern part of Mysore now Karnataka State. The appellants  filed  writ petitions under Article 226  of  the Constitution  in the High Court of Mysore at  Bangalore  as- sailing the constitutional validity of Section 3(3C) of  the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (In short ’the Act’) and the Notification dated March 24, 1966. It was prayed inter  alia that  a  writ or order in the nature of Mandamus  be  issued directing the respondents to include the petitioners’ facto- ry in Zone No. 2 and to fix the price at Rs.161 per  quintal for the sugar manufactured by the petitioners’ factory.     The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the High Court  and the  appellants in these circumstances have approached  this Court challenging the Judgment of the High Court. The  mate- rial  contentions raised by the appellants in the  affidavit and  adumbrated in the grounds of appeal in this  Court  are that the appellants’ factories are part of the entire  State of  Mysore  (now Karnataka) as was  notified  preceding  the impugned notification. The factors like price of  sugarcane, taxes,  duties, sugar recovery percentage,  labour  charges, cost of production or fair return to the produce are same or similar in the entire State but due to the impugned  notifi- cation by including in Zone No. 1 the appellants are put  to huge losses.     The  country  was divided into five zones.  Zone  No.  1 consists of all the factories in Maharashtra, Gujarat, North Mysore, North Andhra Pradesh, Zone No. 2 consists of all the factories  in Orissa, rest of Andhra Pradesh,  South  Mysore (rest of Mysore), Madras, Pondicherry and Kerala. On account thereof  the appellants are stated to be subjected to  heavy losses. The details have been mentioned in the affidavit and the grounds of appeal but for the purpose of disposal of the point involved in the appeals, it is not necessary to  adum- brate  all  the  material particulars in  that  regard.  The contention  that Section 3(3C) of the Act is ultra vires  of their  fundamental rights enshrined under  Article  19(1)(g) and  right to property under Article 19(1)(f) as was  avail- able in the year 1968 (but since deleted under  Constitution 44th Amendment Act) is no longer available. The Act received the  protective umbrella of Article 31C of the  Constitution

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

read  with 9th Schedule as it has been included  therein  as item  No. 126. It is, thereby, immuned from attack  on  that score. Moreover it is covered by a recent constitution bench judgment of this Court in M/s. Shri Sitaram Sugar 866 Company v. Union of India & Ors., [1990] 3 SCC 223 =  [1990] 1 Scale 475. Therefore, the point is no longer res  integra. Section 3(3C) is constitutionally valid and unassailable.     The next contention raised in the High Court as well  as reiterated before us is that the appellants are entitled  to a  notice  and hearing before placing them in  Zone  No.  1. Clubbing  with other factories in the State  of  Maharashtra etc. is uneconomical and kept the appellants under  constant loss. Therefore, it is violative of the principles of  natu- ral justice. To appreciate the contention it is necessary to look into the notification issued. The Government of  India, in  exercise of the power under section 3 of the  Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 appointed "Sugar Inquiry Commission" by notification  No. S.O. 2670 dated August 3, 1964 which  con- sists  of Dr. S.R. Sen, the Advisor and Addl.  Secretary  to Government  of  India, Planning Commission as  Chairman  and four other economic experts as members of the Commission  to inquire  into  (a) the determination of the prices  and  the system of distribution of sugar and (b) the policy regarding licensing of new sugar factories or the expansion of  exist- ing  sugar  factories. They made a detailed  inquiry,  after examining  the persons connected with  industries  including many  an owner of the sugar factories or representatives  of the  Associations  of the sugar  factories  and  cooperative Sugar  Factories’  Associations  etc. In  paragraph  4  they discussed  the  proliferation of zones as against  the  four zones  recommended  by the previous Tariff  Commission.  The representatives of the State Government and the sugar indus- try submitted their detailed memoranda on the various  prob- lems  including  zoning and cost schedules.  The  Commission made  indepth  enquiry and in paragraph 4.3, it  was  stated that  as  against the four zones recommended by  the  Tariff Commission, Government has gradually increased the number to twenty-two.  The Commission has stated each zone  should  be large enough to ensure that the principle of price  fixation does  not degenerate into a ’cost plus’ basis as the  latter discourages  efficiency  and  perpetuates  inefficiency.  In paragraph  4.4,  it was stated that the  Sugarcane  Breeding Institute,  Coimbatore  has divided the whole  country  into five regions on the basis of agro-climatic and other consid- erations details of which were given in Chapter IV:   Region (1)  consists of Gujarat, Maharashtra, North  Mysore,  North Andhra  Pradesh and South Madhya Pradesh. In paragraph  4.6, it  was  stated that apart from considerations  relating  to agro-climatic factors and comparative economic advantage, it is  worthwhile  to consider the variations  in  duration  of crushing  and sugar recovery also. On this basis some  revi- sion in the zones, as suggested by the Coimbatore  Institute appears to be necessary. 867     In  paragraph 4.7, it was stated that "on the  basis  of the  above considerations, the Commission  recommended  five zones  for  the purpose of fixation of ex-factory  price  of sugar." Zone No. 1 as stated earlier, which is relevant  for the purpose of these appeals, consists of Factories in Maha- rashtra, North Mysore etc. Accepting the recommendation, the Government of India in exercise of the powers conferred upon them  by  sub-rule (2) of rule 125 of the Defence  of  India Rules, 1962 and clause 6 of the Sugar (Control) Order,  1963 issued under section 3(3C) of the Act and in supersession of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

the  notification of the Government of  India,  Notification No. GSR 1145 dated August 6, 1965 issued the impugned  noti- fication in GSR No. 463 dated March 24, 1966 and the  facto- ries were specified in Schedules 2 & 3 annexed. The  notifi- cation  has been issued and was published in the Gazette  of India for the purpose of fixing prices in column 2 of Sched- ule I annexed hereto as the maximum ex-factory price.  Thus, that  the appellants’ factories came to be included in  Zone No.  1  as recommended by the  expert,  Economic  Commission appointed  by the Government of India. The  notification  as stated  earlier is a statutory notification issued in  exer- cise of the powers referred to herein before.     The  question, therefore, is whether the appellants  are entitled to individual notices of representation and hearing before  placing  them  in Zone No. 1  and  fixation  of  the prices.  As  regards right to hearing for  fixation  of  the prices  is concerned as stated earlier, it is concluded  in. M/s.  Shri  Sitaram  Sugar Company’s case.  As  regards  the zoning of the factories is concerned it is also based on the reports  submitted  by the Commissions,  consisting  of  the economic  experts  and  the  Sugarcane  Breeding  Institute, Coimbatore  that too after considering  the  representations made  by the State Governments and also the sugar  industry. In  paragraph  4 of M/s. Sitaram Sugar  Company’s  case  our learned brother Thommen, J. speaking for the court has noted that Mr Shanti Bhushan, learned counsel appearing on  behalf of  some of the sugar factories conceded that the zoning  is valid  but  assailed price fixation contending  that’  as  a result  of the zoning, the cost structure was arbitrary  and the classification offends Article 14. That was resisted  by Shri  K.K. Venugopal, learned counsel appearing  for  Indian Sugar  Mills’ Association and also counsel  for  cooperative sugar factories and they supported the principles of zoning. In  the  written submissions made by Shri  Venugopal  it  is noted  by  the Bench that as was seen during the  course  of heating  only two or three persons have come  forward  chal- lenging zoning. There are 389 Sugar Factories in the country and  the present intervener has 166 members. Their  Associa- tions being National Federation of Cooperative Sugar  Facto- ries Ltd., 868 has also intervened in these petitions and have adopted  the arguments  of I.S.M.A. Hence almost the entire industry  has supported  zoning  and  only a handful of  people  who  also factually are not high-cost units have opposed zoning.     In Anakapalle Coop. Agrl. & Industrial Society Ltd. etc, etc.  v, Union of India & Ors., [1973] 2 SCR 882, the  facts are that the Tariff Commission recommended the entire  coun- try to be divided into 15 zones and the levy sugar price was fixed  on the basis. The zoning system was attacked in  that case.  While repelling the contention, Grover,  J.  speaking for the Constitution Bench held that: "It  is somewhat difficult to accept the argument  of  those who are opposed to the zonal system that the loss alleged to have  resulted  to some of the sugar producers  can  be  at- tributed  to  the prices having been  fixed  zone-wise.  For instance,  in the Punjab zone the crushing capacity  of  all the  factories is practically the same i.e. 1,000  tons  per day.  The prices which were fixed by the Government were  on the  basis of 67 days duration with a recovery of 8.75%.  In the  case  of Malwa Sugar Mills the actual duration  was  95 days, the recovery being 8.78%. Ordinarily and in the normal course profits should have been made by the said unit and it should  not have incurred losses. The reasons for  incurring losses  can be many including mismanagement, lack  of  effi-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

ciency  and following a wrong investment policy  which  have nothing to do with the zonal system." and again at page 894 it is laid thus: "The  extreme  position taken up on behalf of  some  of  the petitioners that the prices should have been fixed unit-wise and on the basis of actual costs incurred by each unit could hardly be tenable. Apart from the impracticability of fixing the  prices  for each unit in the whole country  the  entire object  and purpose of controlling prices would be  defeated by the adoption of such a system. It must be remembered that during  the  earlier period of price control the  price  was fixed on an All India basis. That still is the objective and if  such an objective can be achieved it cannot  be  doubted that  it  will be highly conducive to proper  benefit  being concerned on the consumers. According to the Commission  the objective to be achieved should be to have only two 869 regions  in  the  while country,  namely,  sub-tropical  and tropical. Not a single expert body appointed by the  Govern- ment of India from time to time countenanced the  suggestion that price control should be unit-wise. It appears that even before the Tariff Commission such a point of view was under- standably  not pressed on behalf of the sugar industry.  The low  cost units demanded the formation of the larger  zones. The  high  cost  units asked for the  formation  of  smaller zones.  No material has been placed before us to  show  that there  was any serious demand for prices being  fixed  unit- wise"     It  was further held that even in the arguments  it  was almost  common ground with the exception of one or two  dis- sentient voices that zoning is unavoidable in our country in the matter of fixing of the price of sugar. Thus, this Court rejected  that  zoning is to be done on unit-wise  and  that fixation of the price for each unit in the whole country  is impracticable, unworkable and would defeat the very  purpose of fixing sugar price.     In  Shri Sitaram Sugar Company’s case in  paragraph  59, this  Court held that it is a matter of policy and  planning for the Central Government to decide whether it would be  on adoption of a system of partial control, in the best econom- ic  interest  of the sugar industry and the  general  public that sugar factories are grouped together with reference  to geographical-cum-agro-economic-factors  for the  purpose  of determining  the price of levy sugar. Sufficient  power  has been  delegated to the Central Government to  formulate  and implement its policy decision by means of statutory  instru- ments  and  executive orders. Whether the policy  should  be altered  to divide the sugar industry’ into groups of  units with similar cost characteristics with particular  reference to recovery, duration, size and age of the units and capital costs per tonne of output, without regard to their  location is again a matter for the Central Government to decide. What is  best  for the sugar industry and in what  manner  policy should  be formulated and implemented, bearing in  mind  the fundamental object of the statute, namely, supply and  equi- table  distribution of essential commodities at fair  prices in the best interest of the general public, is a matter  for decision  exclusively  within the province  of  the  Central Government. Such matters do not ordinarily attract the power of judicial review. In  paragraph 61 it was further stated that the division  of industry 870 on  zonal basis for the purpose of price  determination  has been  accepted without question by almost all the  producers

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

with the exception of a few like the petitioners. The  indi- vidual disadvantage for the loss, this supply on account  of present  zoning  system by its very nature is  incapable  of determination by judicial review.     In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. etc. v. Union  of India, [1975] 1 SCR 956, this Court held that price fixation is  more in the nature of a legislative measure even  though it may be based upon objective criteria found in a report or other  material.  It could not, therefore, give  rise  to  a complaint  that rules of natural justice have not been  fol- lowed  in fixing the price. In Prag Ice & Oil Mills  &  Anr. etc.  v. Union of India, [1978] 3 SCR 293,  Chandrachud,  J. (as  he  then was) speaking for the Court  held  that  price fixation  is really legislative in character in the type  of control order before the court and it satisfies the test  of legislation and legislative measure does not concern  itself with  the  facts of an individual case. It is meant  to  lay down a general rule applicable to all persons or objects  or transactions of a particular kind or class. (emphasis supplied)     In  Laxmi Khandsari etc. etc. v. State of U.P.  &  Ors., [1981]  3  SCR 92. the facts are that in exercise  of  power under Clause 8 of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, a notifi- cation  was issued prohibiting crushing  during  particulars hours  of the day. It was contended to be violative  of  the principles of natural justice. It was held that it is legis- lative  in character and the rules of natural justice  would stand completely excluded and no question of hearing arises. In  Union  of India & Anr. v. Cynamide India  Ltd.  &  Anr., [1987] 2 SCC 720 at 734 & 735, Chinnappa Reddy, J.  speaking for  the  Court  held that legislative  action,  plenary  or subordinate, is not subject to rules of natural justice.  In the  case of Parliamentary legislation, the  proposition  is self  evident.  In the case of subordinate  legislation,  it itself  provide for a notice and for a hearing, no  one  can insist upon it and it will not be permissible to read  natu- ral justice into such legislative activity. In Shri  Sitaram Sugar  Company’s  case it was reiterated  that  fixation  of price  for sugar is a legislative policy and the  principles of natural justice would not apply.     From this perspective of the statutory study and in  the light  of  the  law laid down by this  Court,  the  question emerges whether the appellants are entitled to an individual notice and hearing before placing them in Zone No. 1 in  the impugned notification. The fixation of 871 the  price and zoning are integral scheme of  the  notifica- tion, without placing the factories in the appropriate  zone based on agro-climatic and other economic considerations the proper  price fixation cannot be made. So both the  fact  or are  part of the policy decision by the Government in  exer- cise of the statutory powers. This decision is based on  the recommendation  made by the Sugar Commission  consisting  of experts in the field of agro-economics who after  exhaustive study  and  consideration of the  relevant  material  placed before  it made the recommendation. Thereby it  assumes  the character of legislative policy. It does not concern  itself with  an  individual  case. Once it is  concluded  that  the zoning  system being an integral part of the price  fixation of the sugar produced by the factories in a particular zone, it  is  legislative  in character and  no  individual  sugar factory  is entitled to a notice and hearing before  placing the particular factory or factories in a particular zone. It was  open to place its view like others’ before the  Commis- sion. It is undoubted that in the subsequent years when  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

writ  petition was filed in the High Court on behalf of  the government, a concession was made that the appellants  would be  reimbursed  of the losses they incurred but that  is  no precedent for deciding that the appellants should be  placed in  a  particular zone or that they should be  heard  before placing them in Zone No. 1. It is true as contended by  Shri Aggarwal  that in paragraph 52 and 53 in Shri Sitaram  Sugar Company’s case, this Court held that any act of the  reposi- tory  of  power, whether legislative  or  administrative  or quasi-judicial,  is open to challenge if it is  in  conflict with  the Constitution or the governing Act or  the  general principles  of law of the land or it is arbitrary or  unrea- sonable  that no fair minded authority could ever  had  made it.  Even then this Court has pointed out that the  impugned orders  are  undoubtedly  based on an  exhaustive  study  by experts  and that the impugned orders though open to  criti- cism  would  not be subject to judicial review. It  is  also true that in Anakapalle Coop. Agrl. and Industrial Society’s case, this Court has pointed out that all the factories in a State  would be placed in one zone and placing them in  dif- ferent regions would be uneconomical. In Shri Sitaram  Sugar Company’s  case, the Constitution Bench also held  that  the above decision requires no reconsideration. But the observa- tions  therein have been made based upon the  recommendation made by the Tariff Commission and accepted by the government to keep each State in a particular zone but when the  subse- quent Sugar Commission went into the question since by  then there  is  appreciable  increase of large  number  of  sugar factories  in several regions, though not on  the  Statewise basis in a particular zone. As stated earlier the  recommen- dations are based on indepth study. The notification as such was  not  questioned in the writ  petition.  Therefore,  the observation of this 872 Court in that paragraph cannot be construed to put a  fetter on the power of the government to reconsider the policy  due to change in circumstances of groupings of the sugar  facto- ries in a State in one zone or other region. It is  apposite here to quote the rule laid in Joseph Beauharnais v.  People of  the State Illinois, 96 L.Ed. 919 at 930,  applicable  to the facts of the present case, thus: "This being so, it would be out of bounds for the  judiciary to  deny the legislature a choice of policy, provided it  is not  unrelated  to  the problem and not  forbidden  by  some explicit limitation on the State’s power. That the  legisla- tive  remedy  might not in practice mitigate  the  evil,  or might  itself raise new problems, would only  manifest  once more  the paradox of reform. It is the price to be paid  for the trial-and-error inherent in legislative efforts to  deal with obstinate social issues." Moreover  the Sugar Commission heard the persons desired  to be  heard  and considered the  representation  and  material produced.  At  the  stage of notification  the  question  of further  representation  or  hearing does not  arise  not  a feasible  exercise.  It  is for the  government  whether  to accept  or reject or modify the recommendation made  by  the Commission. We, accordingly, hold that zoning is a  legisla- tive act and policy. We have no hesitation to conclude  that the  contention of the appellants that they are entitled  to individual  representation  and notice  and  heating  before placing them in Zone No. 1 is devoid of force and is reject- ed. It is also equally true that the government did not file any  counter affidavit even till date, refuting the  allega- tions  made in the grounds of appeal regarding  the  alleged costs  structure and the consequential loss that the  appel-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

lants  are being put to. But in view of the finding that  it is  a  legislative policy but not an  executive  action,  we cannot  draw an adverse inference against the State for  not denying  those allegations and to conclude that  the  appel- lants’  factories are to be placed in a particular zone.  In other words this Court cannot interfere with the legislative policy  of zoning particular factories in a  particular  re- gion, namely, in Zone No. 1 of the appellants’ factories  by merely the State having omitted to file the counter  affida- vit  refuting  the allegations of the alleged  loss.  In  an individual  case  of administrative action,  if  no  counter affidavit  has been filed an adverse inference may be  drawn and  relief  may be moulded as per given  situation.  Likely that  some loss may be caused to individual factory  but  as pointed  out  by this Court in Anakapalle  Coop.  Agrl.  and Industrial Society’s case that the price fixation cannot  be made unit-wise and it is not practic- 873 able to make unit as a base t6 fix the price or to place  in a  particular zone. The very relief in the writ petition  to fix  the price at Rs. 161 per quintal cannot be  ordered  as was  already negatived by this Court. Considering  from  the above  perspective we have no hesitation to reject the  con- tention of the appellants and dismiss the appeals but  with- out costs. N.P.V.                              Appeals dismissed. 874