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

PETITIONER: INDIA CEMENT LTD. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT21/08/1990

BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) BENCH: VERMA, JAGDISH SARAN (J) PUNCHHI, M.M. REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J)

CITATION:  1991 AIR  724            1990 SCR  (3) 850  1990 SCC  (4) 356        JT 1990 (3)   572  1990 SCALE  (2)291

ACT:     Cement Control Order 1967 Clause 12--Fixation of uniform retention price--Legality of.

HEADNOTE:     The  appellants filed writ petitions in the Madras  High Court  challenging the fixation in 1969 of a uniform  reten- tion  price  of Rs. 100 per tonne of cement instead  of  the existing  three  different retention  prices  for  different categories  of producers fixed earlier on the basis  of  the recommendations  made  by the Second  Tariff  Commission  in 1961. The grievance of the appellants was that the  fixation of a uniform retention price to be paid to all producers for the cement produced by them and acquired by the State  Trad- ing  Corporation  amounted  to  discrimination  contravening Article  14 of the Constitution. The challenge was  rejected by  a Single Judge and, thereafter, a Division Bench of  the High Court.     Cement  has been a controlled commodity for a long  time and its production, distribution and price were regulated by Cement Control Orders issued by the Central Government  from time  to  time  in exercise of the  powers  conferred  under sections 18G and 25 of the Industrial (Development & Regula- tion) Act, 1951.     On  behalf of the appellants it was contended  that  the impugned Order made in 1969 fixing a uniform retention price for  all  three categories of cement producers  treated  un- equals as equals; that the increase of Rs.7 per tonne was to be made to the existing three-tier retention prices, but  an irrational basis was adopted in fixing the uniform price  of Rs.  100 per tonne which resulted in an unequal increase  to the  three  different retention prices then  existing;  that clause  12 of the Cement Control Order, 1967 did not  permit one uniform retention price; and that atleast in the case of Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd. discrimination was  proved on  the basis of the distinction made by the High  Court  in the case of M/s Travancore Cement Ltd. The appellants howev- er did not dispute before this court that no grievance would survive if the uniform retention price was fixed at Rs.  104 per tonne instead of Rs. 100.

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

851     On  behalf of the respondents it was asserted  that  the industry itself had sought a revision of the prices and  had accepted  in  principle  that there should  be  one  uniform retention price. Dismissing the appeals, this Court,     HELD:  {1)  The  fixation of Rs. 100 per  tonne  as  the uniform  retention  price for the entire industry  with  the solitary  exception of M/S Travancore Cement Ltd. for  which justification had been shown, was on a rational basis taking into  account  all relevant data and factors  including  the cement  industry’s acceptance of the principle of a  uniform retention price for the entire industry, the only difference being  in  the  price actually fixed at Rs.  100  per  tonne instead of Rs. 104 per tonne claimed by the cement industry. It  is obvious, therefore, that the principle of  a  uniform retention price for the entire industry had not been  fault- ed. [857H; 858A-B]     (2) The principle of fixation of a uniform price for the industry  was an accepted principle and this had to be  done by  fixing the uniform price on the basis of the cost  of  a reasonably  efficient  and  economic  representative  cross- section of manufacturing units and not with reference to the cost in relation to each unit. [859A-B]     M/s. Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & Anr. v.  Union of India & Ors. and U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., J.T. 1990 (1) SC 462, referred to.     (3) Fixation of a uniform retention price being  clearly permissible  and the same having been determined at Rs.  100 per  tonne on the basis of expert opinion, rounded on  rele- vant factors, there was no scope for interference within the limits  of permissible judicial review in the present  case. [859E]     Anakapalle Co-operative Agricultural & Industrial Socie- ty Ltd. v. Union of India, [1973] 2 SCR 982 and The  Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills v. Union of India, [1973] 2 SCR 860, referred to.     (4)  The Central Government’s power under Clause  12  of the  Cement  Control Order, 1967 to refix the price  can  be exercised ’having regard to any change in any of the factors relevant for determination of price of cement’. The  meaning of  the  expression ’having regard to’ is  well-settled.  It indicates  that in exercising the power, regard must be  had also  to  the factors enumerated together with  all  factors relevant for 852 exercise of that power. One such factor specified in  Clause 12 is "such     (5)  No material has been produced by the  appellant  to show  that  M/s Chettinad Cement Corporation  is  a  similar substandard unit without any capacity for expansion, so that it  too  must  continue to be an uneconomic  unit  like  M/s Travancore  Cement  Ltd.  deserving  a  similar   treatment. [860F-G]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2 192/93 of 1972.     From  the  Judgment and Decree dated  23.4.1971  of  the Madras High Court in Writ Appeal Nos. 155 and 157 of 1970.     G.L.  Sanghi, K. Parasaran, S. Krishnamurthy Iyer,  K.K. Venugopal,  D.N. Mishra and Ms. Lira Goswami for the  Appel- lants.

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

   V.C.  Mahajan, Gobind Das, N.L. Kakar, C.V.  Subba  Rao, B.R. Aggarwala, T.C. Sharma, Mrs. Sushma Suri and Ms. Sushma Manchanda for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     VERMA,  J.  Both these appeals are  against  the  common judgment  of the Madras High Court (hereinafter referred  to as  ’the High Court’) by a certificate under Article  133(1) of the Constitution prior to its amendment. The  appellants’ writ  petitions  were dismissed by a common  judgment  dated 18.12.1969  by a learned Single Judge of the High Court  and thereafter,  the writ appeals were dismissed by  a  Division Bench  of the High Court on 23.4.1971. The grievance of  the appellants  before  us  is, as it was  in  the  High  Court, against the fixation of a uniform retention price in 1969 to be paid to all producers for the cement produced by them and acquired  by  the State Trading Corporation. In  short,  the appellants’  grievance  is that the fixation  of  a  uniform retention  price for all producers in 1969 instead of  three different  retention  prices  for  different  categories  of producers,  as was done earlier, amounted to  discrimination contravening Article 14 of the Constitution.     The  background in which the argument of  discrimination has  to be tested may now be stated. Cement has been a  con- trolled com- 853 modity for a long time and its production, distribution  and price were regulated by Cement Control Orders issued by  the Central  Government  from time to time in  exercise  of  the powers conferred under the Industries (Development & Regula- tion)  Act, 1951. The arrangement made in 1856 was that  the entire  quantity  of cement produced by  all  producers  was acquired by the State Trading Corporation which  distributed it  throughout  the  country at a uniform  price  on  f.o.r. basis. The price payable by the State Trading Corporation to the  producer  was, however, the ’retention price’  or  ’ex- works’  or  ’ex-factory price’ fixed by the  Government.  In accordance  with  the recommendations of  the  First  Tariff Commission in 1958, the Central Government fixed f.o.r.  and ex-factory  prices  for a period of three  years  from  July 1958, under the Cement Control Order, 1958. Even though  the consumer  price  was one uniform f.o.r.  destination  price, there were different retention prices for cement relating to the producers. In case of a new unit commencing  production, the Government fixed suitable retention price for it on  the basis of cost of production.     Pursuant  to representation by the cement  industry  for revision in the prices, the Second Tariff Commission was set up  by  the Government to examine the question.  The  Tariff Commission,  after  a  comprehensive  study,  submitted  its report  on  26.8.1961. In the report, it  was  noticed  that fixation  of ex-works price for individual cement  producers had brought stagnation in the cement industry due to lack of competition  and incentive amongst producers to  reduce  the cost  of production, improve the operational efficiency  and increase the output. It was observed that instead of reward- ing efficiency, it had promoted a tendency to inflate  costs which  facilitated increase in the margin of profit  to  the producer.  The  Tariff  Commission  ultimately  grouped  the various  units under three broad categories on the basis  of return on the capital employed. These were: the lowest  cost group, the high cost group, and those whose cost of  produc- tion  was in between the other two groups. Accordingly,  the Tariff Commission recommended different retention prices for the  manufacturers of cement. The Government  generally  ac- cepted  the  recommendations and passed the  Cement  Control

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

Order,  1961,  fixing three different retention  prices  for three different groups of manufacturers. The Central Govern- ment  from time to time permitted increase in the  retention prices so fixed.     The  Central Government decided on discontrol of  cement w.e.f. 1.1.1966, but the cement industry imposed a system of self-regulation  and  set  up an unofficial  body  known  as "Cement Allocation and 854 Coordinating Organisation". The cement was to be distributed to  consumers at uniform f.o.r. destination price  all  over India.  This  price included a freight component.  A  cement regulation account was also established to which a  manufac- turer would either contribute or draw from depending on  the actual freight incurred. This system was not found  workable and the Central Government decided to re-impose control. The Cement Control Order, 1967 was passed under Section 18G  and Section 25 of the Industries (Development & Regulation) Act, 1951,  to be effective from 1.1.1968. Under this Order,  the threetier  retention  price  system was  continued  and  the retention  prices fixed for the three groups were  specified in  the Schedule as Rs.90.50, Rs.93.50 and Rs.96.  Both  the appellants  fell under the category for which the  retention price specified in the Schedule was Rs.96. Under this Cement Control  Order,  the system of uniform  consumer  price  was preserved and freight equalisation was maintained by requir- ing  the manufacturer to either contribute or draw from  the cement  regulation  account  set up under clause  9  of  the Order. The Cement Controller replaced the Cement  Allocation and Co-ordinating Organisation.     Pursuant to the representation made by various  manufac- turers, the Central Government enquired into the increase in the cost of production since 1.1.1966. In consultation  with the concerned authorities, it was estimated that the weight- ed average increase in the cost of production since 1.1.1966 was  Rs7 per tonne. The Central Government then  issued  the Cement  Control (Amendment) Order, 1969 on 14.4.1969  effec- tive from 16.4.1969 by which the Cement Control Order,  1967 was  amended  and in respect of  all  cement  manufacturers, except  M/s. Travancore Cement Limited, Kottayam, a  uniform retention price of Rs. 100 per tonne was fixed.     The  appellants filed writ petitions in the Madras  High Court challenging the fixation of a uniform retention  price of  Rs. 100 per tonne in this manner on the ground  that  it violated  Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the  Constitution.  As earlier stated, the challenge was rejected by a Single Judge and  thereafter, a Division Bench of the High Court,  Hence, these  appeals  by a certificate granted by the  High  Court under  the unamended Article 133(1) of the  Constitution  of India,     The  challenge before us in these appeals is based  only on  Article  14  of the  Constitution.  Shri  K.  Parasaran, learned  counsel for the appellant in the Civil  Appeal  No. 2193 of 1972 (Chettinad Cement 855 Corporation  Ltd.  v.  Union of India,  contended  that  the impugned Order made in 1969 fixing a uniform retention price for all three categories of cement producers treats unequals as  equals. He argued that the fixation of  three  different retention  prices  earlier was based on the  Tariff  Commis- sion’s  Report  on the postulate that  different  .producers were differently situated with different cost of  production and  therefore, the fixation of different  retention  prices for them was reasonable. He next contended that increase  in the cost of production being the real cause for  re-fixation

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

of a higher price, the exercise purports to be under  Clause 12 of the Cement Control Order, 1967, which does not  permit fixation of the same price for all producers in spite of the difference  in their cost of production,  particularly  when the  Schedule  to the order  initially  specified  different prices  for them. He also contended that on the  finding  of the  High Court that the Chettinad Cement  Corporation  Ltd. (appellant  in Civil Appeal No. 2193 of 1972)--a newly  born unit  in  infancy--has  suffered by  this  common  treatment because  there  are several features which  distinguish  the Chettinad  Cement  Corporation Ltd. from  the  other  units, fixation of the same price for this appellant is discrimina- tory,  particularly when a distinction was made in the  case of M/s. Travancore Cement Ltd., Kottayam, for which a higher retention  price was fixed. Shri Parasaran, therefore,  con- tended that atleast in the case of this appellant, discrimi- nation is proved on the basis of the High Court’s finding of fact  and a direction for re-fixation of a reasonable  price ’for  this appellant would be justified. Shri  G.L.  Sanghi, learned  counsel for the appellant in Civil Appeal No.  2192 of  1972,  advanced  a slightly modified  argument.  He  too referred  to Clause 12 of the Cement Control Order, 1967  to contend that fixation of one uniform retention price for all producers is not permissible thereunder. He argued that  the increase  of Rs.7 per tonne was to be made to  the  existing three-tier  retention  prices, but an irrational  basis  was adopted  in  fixing the uniform price of Rs. 100  per  tonne which results in an unequal increase to the three  different retention  prices  then existing. Both the  learned  counsel contended  that the result, therefore, is that whereas  pro- ducers  for  whom  the retention  price  fixed  earlier  was Rs.90.50  per tonne have got an increase of more than  Rs.7, the  producers  for whom the retention price  was  fixed  at Rs.96  per  tonne have been given an increase of  less  than Rs.7.  It  was, therefore, contended that  fixation  of  the uniform retention price of Rs. 100 per tonne in case of  all cement producers except M/s. Travancore Cement Ltd.,  Kotta- yam, is discriminatory resulting in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution. To recapitulate, the arrangement in vogue from 1956 was that 856 the cement produced by all the producers was acquired by the State  Trading Corporation which distributed  the  commodity throughout the country at a uniform price on f.o.r. destina- tion basis. The price payable by the S.T.C. to the producers was  known  as the ’retention price’ or ’ex-works’  or  ’ex- factory price’ at a uniform rate. On a representation by the industry  for revision of prices, the  Government  appointed the  Second Tariff Commission to go into the  question.  The Tariff  Commission, after a comprehensive review,  submitted its  report  on 26.8.1961, and recommended the  fixation  of different  retention prices for different groups  of  cement producers. The Government generally accepted the recommenda- tions  of  the Tariff Commission and fixed  three  different retention prices which remained in vogue till fixation of  a uniform retention price by the impugned Order in 1969.     It may be mentioned that the fixation of three different prices instead of one uniform retention price in the  inter- vening period was challenged before the Rajasthan High Court on the ground that it was discriminatory, but that challenge was  rejected  in Jaipur Udyog Ltd. v. Union of  India,  AIR 1969 Rajasthan 28 1.     Thereafter,  the cement industry sought a further  revi- sion  of the prices and the industry accepted  in  principle that  there  should be one uniform retention  price  or  ex-

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

factory price in place of the three-tier system, though  the claim of the industry was that the uniform price be fixed at Rs.96  instead  of Rs.93. The real  controversy,  therefore, between the cement industry and the Central Government  was, whether  the  addition of Rs.7 per tonne for fixation  of  a uniform  retention price should be made to the sum of  Rs.96 or to Rs.93. In other words, if the uniform retention  price were  fixed  at  Rs. 104 per tonne instead of  Rs.  100  per tonne, there was no grievance to anyone in the cement indus- try against fixation of the uniform retention price. Even at the  hearing before us, in reply to this specific  query  by us, learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute  that no grievance would survive to the appellants if the  uniform retention  price was fixed at Rs. 104 per tonne  instead  of Rs.  100 per tonne. In substance, the grievance of both  the appellants, therefore, is only to this extent and the  argu- ment of discrimination has been advanced for this purpose.     In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the  Central Government, the manner in which the uniform retention  price for  the  industry was fixed at Rs. 100 per tonne  has  been elaborately  explained. A portion of the  counter-affidavit, relied on by the High Court also, is as under: 857 "The  question  of introduction of a uniform price  for  the entire  industry had been under consideration from  time  to time  since  1961.  The opportunity of the  request  of  the industry for an upward revision of their retention price due to increase in cost of production as a result of  Governmen- tal  actions  since  1.1.1966, was availed  of  to  consider whether it was not opportune to introduce finally a  uniform price  for  the entire industry as a Whole. In view  of  the observations  of the Tariff Commission in  1961 that  econo- mies  were possible with better management control and  that the industry should make every effort to reduce its cost  of production in future and the time elapsed since 196 1 it was felt  that the additional price granted to the  industry  in 196 1, need not any longer be continued. The weighted  aver- age  increase in the cost of production as a result of  Gov- ernmental actions since 1.1.1966, was determined in  consul- tation  with  the Chief Cost Accounts Officer  as  Rs.7  per tonne.  The  uniform price thus works out  to  Rs.90.50  per tome,  i.e. Rs.69.50 per tonne prescribed in ’1961  together with  subsequent  increases amounting in all to  Rs.21.  The weighted  average  retention  price on the  basis  of  three different retention prices amounted to Rs.93 per tonne.  The uniform  price  for the industry was thus fixed at  Rs.  100 i.e.  Rs.93  per tonne, the weighted average  of  the  three retention prices on the basis of actual production plus Rs.7 per  tonne, as a result of the increase in the cost of  pro- duction  due  to Governmental actions  since  1.1.1966.  The fixation  of  a uniform retention price does  not  therefore involve  any inequality or arbitrariness. It is denied  that the  Cement Control (Amendment) Order, 1969, has  introduced any  unfair and arbitrary inequality among the various  pro- ducers  and would cause considerable loss to the  petitioner or  would amount to an unjust and  arbitrary  discrimination violative  of Article 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution  of India."     The assertion in the counter-affidavit of the Government is  that the industry was itself in favour of a single  uni- form  retention  price which was taken into account  by  the Government in fixing the uniform price. This was not  rebut- ted by the appellants. The High Court has rightly relied  on this fact. It is, therefore, clear that the fixation of  Rs. 100 per tonne as the uniform retention price for the  entire

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

industry  with  the solitary exception  of  M/s.  Travancore Cement Ltd., Kotta- 858 yam,  for which justification has been shown, was on  a  ra- tional  basis  taking  into account all  relevant  data  and factors  including the cement industry’s acceptance  of  the principle of a uniform retention price for the entire indus- try, the only difference being in the price, actually  fixed at Rs. 100 per tonne instead of Rs. 104 per tonne claimed by the cement industry. It is obvious that the fixation at  Rs. 100  per tonne being shows to be made on a  principle  which has not been faulted, the actual fixation at Rs. 100 instead of Rs. 104 to be received by the industry is not within  the domain of permissible judicial review if the principle of  a uniform  retention price for the entire industry  cannot  be faulted,     The principles of price fixation permitting the fixation of  a  uniform price for the entire industry are  no  longer debatable after the recent decision of a Constitution  Bench in  M/s, Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Limited & Anr. v.  Union of  India  & Ors., and U.P. Stale Sugar Corporation  Ltd.  & Anr.  v. Union of India & Ors., JT 1990 (1) SC 462  even  if the  same were debatable when the controversy arose  in  the present case. In this decision, the Constitution Bench while affirming the earlier decisions of this Court in  Anakapalle Co-operative  Agricultural  & Industrial Society  Ltd.  etc. etc.  v.  Union of India & Ors., [1973] 2 SCR  882  and  The Panipat Cooperative Sugar Mills v. Union of India, [1973]  2 SCR  860 reiterated the settled principles. It  was  pointed out  that what is best for the industry and in  what  manner the policy should be formulated and implemented, bearing  in mind the object of supply and equitable distribution of  the commodity at a fair price in the best interest of the gener- al  public, is a matter for decision exclusively within  the province  of the Central Government and such matters do  not ordinarily attract the power of judicial review. It was also held  that  even if some persons are at a  disadvantage  and have  suffered  losses  on account of  the  formulation  and implementation  of  the Government policy, that  is  not  by itself  sufficient ground for interference with the  Govern- mental  action.  Rejection of the principle of  fixation  of price unitwise on actual cost basis of each unit was reiter- ated  and  it was pointed out that such  a  policy  promotes efficiency  and provides an incentive to cut down  the  cost introducing  an  element of healthy  competition  among  the units.  Similarly,  the criticism against the  principle  of weighted  average adopted in fixation of price was  rejected as  baseless. It is obvious that even if there be  no  price control, the uneconomic units would be at a great  disadvan- tage  and, therefore, the position should not  be  different for  the  purpose of price fixation. The  "cost-plus"  price fixation  perpetuates  inefficiency in the industry  and  is against  the long-term interest of the country. It was  held "that 859 price,  .....  , is to be arrived  at by a process of  cost- ing  with reference to a reasonably efficient  and  economic representative cross-section of manufacturing units." It is, therefore, clear that the principle of fixation of a uniform price for the industry is an accepted principle and this has to  be  done by fixing a uniform price on the basis  of  the cost  of a reasonably efficient and economic  representative cross-section of manufacturing units and not with  reference to  the  cost in relation to each unit.  Obviously,  such  a practice  is  in larger public interest  and  also  promotes

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

efficiency  in  the industry providing an incentive  to  the uneconomic  units to achieve efficiency and to reduce  their cost. In the same decision, the permitted scope of  judicial review was summarised as under: "The true position, therefore, is that any act of the repos- itory  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 the law of the land or it is so arbitrary  or unreasonable  that no fair minded authority could ever  have made it."     In  the present case, we find that the fixation  of  the uniform retention price at Rs. 100 per tonne is based on the weighted average increase of Rs.7 in the cost of  production and  the  weighted average retention price on the  basis  of three  different  retention prices determined at  Rs.93  per tonne on the basis of expert opinion. Fixation of a  uniform retention  price  being  clearly permissible  and  the  same having been determined at Rs. 100 per tonne on the basis  of expert  opinion,  rounded on relevant factors, there  is  no scope  for  interference within the  limits  of  permissible judicial review in the present case.     A  brief  reference to Clause 12 of the  Cement  Control Order, 1967 may also be made. Clause 12 reads as under: "12. POWER TO VARY THE PRICES AND TO ALTER THE SCHEDULE           . The Central Government may, having regard to any change  in  any  of the factors relevant for  the  price  of cement,  such  as  an increase or decrease in  the  cost  of production or distribution, by notification in the  Official Gazette,  vary  the price fixed in this Order or  alter  the Schedule to this Order as appear to it to be necessary." 860 We  are  unable to appreciate how Clause 12  in  any  manner restricts  the Central Government’s power to fix  a  uniform retention price for all the units specified in the  Schedule to the Order, even though different prices were specified in the Schedule as initially enacted. The Central  Government’s power to refix the price can be exercised ’having regard  to any change in any of the factors relevant for  determination of  price of cement’. The meaning of the expression  ’having regard  to’ is wellsettled. It indicates that in  exercising the power, regard must be had also to the factors enumerated together  with  all factors relevant for  exercise  of  that power.  Once such factor specified in Clause 12 is "such  as an increase or decrease in the cost of production or distri- bution".  Admittedly, the fixation of the uniform  retention price at Rs. I00 per tonne was made on the industry’s demand for  revision  of the price as a result of increase  in  the cost  of production, the only dispute between  the  industry and  the Central Government being with regard to the  extent of increase and not to the effect of increase or the mode of increase  by fixation of a uniform price. It is,  therefore, difficult to appreciate the support that the learned counsel for the appellants seek from Clause 12.     The  only  surviving question for consideration  is  the argument  in Civil Appeal No. 2 193 of 1972 for a  differen- tial  treatment  to  the appellant,  M/s.  Chettinad  Cement Corporation  Limited,  on  the analogy  of  M/s.  Travancore Cement  Limited, Kottayam. In the counter-affidavit of  Shri G.  Ramanathan, Under Secretary to the Government of  India, the reason for treating Travancore Cement Limited different- ly has been clearly stated. It has been stated that it is  a sub-standard unit with a capacity of 50000 tonnes per  annum only  without  any scope for expansion  while  the  standard capacity  for a unit is two lakh tonnes per annum;  so  that

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

this unit is not capable of expanding the capacity and it is on the whole an uneconomic unit deserving a special  consid- eration.  No  material has been produced by  the  appellant, M/s.  Chettinad Cement Corporation Limited, to show that  it is  a  similar sub-standard unit without  any  capacity  for expansion, so that it too must continue to be an  uneconomic unit like M/s. Travancore Cement Limited, Kottayam deserving a similar treatment. The counter-affidavit, therefore, shows a  rational  basis for classifying  M/s.  Travancore  Cement Limited,  Kottayam,  differently as a  sub-standard  and  an uneconomic  unit without any scope for improvement  in  com- parison to other units. This argument also is untenable. As  a  result of the aforesaid discussion, we  do  not  find merit in 861 any of the contentions advanced in support of these  appeals to  support the challenge on the basis of Article 14 of  the Constitution to the fixation of a uniform retention price of Rs.  100 per tonne in 1969 by the impugned Order or  to  the practice  of a uniform retention price being  followed  upto 1979.     These appeals are accordingly dismissed. In the  circum- stances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. R.S.S.                             Appeals dismissed. 862