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

PETITIONER: M/S.  DIWAN SUGAR & GENERAL MILLS (PRIVATE) LTD.  AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/01/1959

BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. DAS, SUDHI RANJAN (CJ) IMAM, SYED JAFFER DAS, S.K. HIDAYATULLAH, M.

CITATION:  1959 AIR  626            1959 SCR  Supl. (2) 123  CITATOR INFO :  R          1974 SC 366  (55)  RF         1981 SC 873  (18,26)

ACT:        SugarControl--Notification fixing price ex-factory-Legality        -Restrictions     on    right    to    trade-Discrimination-        Sugar(Control) Order, 1955, cl. 5-Essential Commodities Act,        1955 (10 of 1955), s.    5-Constitution of India, Arts.  14,        19(1)(g).

HEADNOTE: In  exercise of the powers under S. 3 Of the Essential  Com- modities  Act, 1955, and under cl. 5 of the Sugar  (Control) Order,  1955, the Government of India issued a  notification dated  July 30, 1958, fixing the ex-factory price per  maund of sugar produced in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and North  Bihar. The petitioners challenged the legality of the  notification on the grounds (1) that it was beyond the ambit of authority conferred  on  the  Central Government under  s.  3  of  the Essential  Commodities Act, 955, and clause 5 Of  the  Sugar (Control) Order, 1955, and that, in any case, it was bad  as it  could  not  subserve the purposes of  the  Act  ensuring equitable distribution of the commodity to the consumer at a fair price, (2) that the Act and the Order did not authorise the  Central Government to fix ex-factory prices,  and,,  in any  case,  the notification failed to fix  prices  for  the ultimate  consumer,  (3)  that it  imposed  an  unreasonable restriction  on  the  right to trade  under  Art.  10(1)(g), inasmuch as it fixed the price arbitrarily, and there was no reasonable  safeguard  against the abuse of power,  and  (4) that  it  was  discriminatory because  it  fixed  ex-factory prices only for factories in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and North Bihar  and  not for factories in other parts  of  India  and there  was no reasonable classification discernible  on  any intelligible  differentia on the basis of which  prices  had been controlled in certain regions only. Held,  (1) The notification dated July 30, 1958,  is  within the authority conferred on the Central Government by S. 3 Of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and cl. 5 of the  Sugar

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

(Control) Order,1955. (2)  Section  3  of the Act which provides  for  control  of price  is very general in terms and authorises  the  Central Government  to  fix the ex-factory price  of  sugar  without fixing  the  wholesale  or retail prices;  and,  since  fair prices for the consumer are ensured by fixing the ex-factory price,  the notification in question subserves the  purposes of the Act, and is valid. (3)  Clause 5 of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1955, lays  down the  factors  which have to be taken into  consideration  in fixing  prices, and as the prices were fixed  in  accordance therewith, the 124 action  taken  by the Government in the  -interests  of  the general public could not be challenged on the ground that it was  an  unreasonable restriction on the right to  carry  on trade under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. (4)  Though under the notification prices are fixed for fac- tories  only  in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and North  Bihar,  in effect, they are fixed for the whole of India, as the  other States are deficit ; consequently, the notification  brought about no discrimination between different regions.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 134 of 1958. Writ Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of  India for the Enforcement of Fundamental Rights. N.   C. Chatterjee, K. P. Mukherjee, P. D. Himatsinghka  and B. P. Maheshwari, for the petitioners. M.   C. Setalvad, Attorney-General for India, B. Sen and  R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent. K.   P. Khaitan, K. P. Mukherjee and B. P. Maheshwari, for Interveners 1 to 10. G.   S. Pathak, K. P. Mukherjee and B. P. Maheshwari,  for Interveners 11 to 13. 1959.  January 23.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered by , WANCHOO, J.-This petition under Art. 32 of the  Constitution challenges  the legality of the notification dated July  30, 1958, (hereinafter called the impugned notification), issued by  the Government of India fixing the ex-factory price  per maund  of sugar produced in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and  North Bihar.   It  has been supported by two sets  of  interveners consisting  of  sugar factories in these areas who  did  not join the petition. The   case  of  the  petitioners  is  that   the   Essential Commodities  Act, 1955 (X-of 1955). (hereinafter called  the Act),  was passed by Parliament in 1955, for the control  of the  production, supply and distribution of, and  trade  and commerce in, certain commodities, which included sugar.   By s. 3 of the Act, the Central Government was given the power, if  it was of opinion that it was necessary or expedient  so to  do  for  maintaining  or  increasing  supplies  of   any essential   commodity  or-  for  securing  their   equitable distribution and 125 availability  at  fair  prices,  to  provide  by  order  for regulating   or  prohibiting  the  production,  supply   and distribution   thereof  and  trade  and  commerce   therein. Section  3(2)  further provided inter alia  for  controlling -the price at which any essential commodity might be  bought or   sold.   In  exercise  of  these  powers,  the   Central Government  promulgated  the Sugar  (Control)  Order,  1955,

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

(hereinafter called the Order), on August 27, 1955.   Clause 5  of  the Order gave power to the  Central  Government,  by notification  in the Official Gazette, to fix the  price  or the  maximum  price  at which any sugar  might  be  &old  or delivered, and different prices might be fixed for different areas factories or different types or grades of sugar.  Such price  or maximum price had to be fixed with due  regard  to various  factors, with which we shall deal later.   On  June 27,  1958,  the  Central Government  promulgated  the  Sugar Export Promotion Ordinance, No. V of 1958, empowering it  to appoint an export agency for carrying out the work of buying sugar in the Indian market and exporting the same to foreign markets  and fixing the quantity of sugar for  export.   The Central Government was also authorised by that Ordinance  to fix quotas apportioning the quantity of sugar to be supplied by  each  factory for export and levy an  additional  excise duty at the rate of Rs. 17 per maund on any factory  failing to deliver its quota of sugar for export.  On the same  day, three  notifications were issued: (i) fixing 50,000 tons  of sugar as the quantity to be exported out of India during the period  ending October 31, 1958, (2) appointing  the  Indian Sugar Mills Association, Calcutta, as the export agency, and (3)   delegating  the  powers  conferred  on   the   Central Government  to  the Chief Director of Sugar  and  Vanaspati, Ministry  of Food and Agriculture also.  Then  followed  the impugned  notification  fixing ex-factory  prices  of  sugar produced by the factories in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and North Bihar.  It is being challenged on the ground that the  price fixed  is  considerably  below the cost  of  production  and ignores various factors affecting the cost of production and distribution  of sugar including charges incidental to  sale and 126 distribution.  The impugned notification is also attacked on the  ground  that  it did not fix any  price  at  which  the persons  purchasing sugar from the mills would sell  it,  so that it was open to the middleman who bought sugar from  the factories   to   sell  it  at  any  price,   thus   creating discrimination  between factories and factories and  between the producers selling sugar and the middlemen who buy  sugar selling  the  same in their turn.  It is also  alleged  that fixing  of  the price was arbitrary and did  not  take  into account the cost of production of a large number of units in the  country  and did not provide for a fair  and  equitable distribution  of sugar in the country at a price in any  way related  to the price at which the factories were  compelled to  sell  their  products.   Consequently,  the  petitioners prayed  for an appropriate order, direction or writ  in  the nature  of  mandamus or any other writ  quashing  the  Sugar (Control)  Order, 1955, and all orders made in pursuance  of it including the impugned notification. The  petition has been, opposed by the  Central  Government. It  is contended -on their behalf that the entire object  of fixing the price of sugar was (a) to make it available at  a reasonable price to the consumer, and (b) to ensure adequate and  smooth flow and supply of sugar which is  an  essential commodity  for  the life of the people to all parts  of  the country according to their needs and requirements,  checking the  speculative tendency of the market and  destroying  the creation of an artificial shortage by unscrupulous  persons. Prices of sugar were first put under control as far back  as 1942  and  this control continued up to 1947,  when  it  was withdrawn on December 8, 1947.  It was, however’ found  that internal prices were raised during the de-control period  on the pretext of subsidizing export, which never materialised.

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

In  consequence,, control was again imposed on September  2, 1949;  but  it was lifted in- 1952, when it was  found  that there was sufficient stock available at the end of the 1951- 52 season.  In 1953-54, however, production fell and control had  again to be imposed for that season.  It was,  however, lifted a year later.  In November 1956 127 there  was a considerable surplus of sugar and  the  Central Government  permitted export of 1.53 lakh of metric tons  in 1957.   The Central Government was again approached in  1958 to  make  the  export of sugar a permanent  feature  and  it agreed to allow export during 1958 in view of the carry over from  the  previous  season and  also  for  earning  foreign exchange  in  the interest of the country.   Therefore,  the Central  Government promulgated the Sugar  Export  Promotion Ordinance,  No.  V of 1958, on June 27, 1958.  But  as  this Ordinance  was expected, a tendency developed ’in the  sugar industry  to push up prices after the month of  April  1958. As  a  result of this tendency, prices went up  by  about  a rupee per maund in May and June 1958, and it was feared that they  might  go up further in view of the quota  for  export announced  on June 27, 1958.  In view of this  apprehension, the  industry  assured Government that the  sugar  factories would  offer to sell their released stocks freely at  prices prevalent  before the export policy was announced, i.e.,  in the  week before June 27, 1958.  In spite, however, of  this assurance,  there  was a general rise in prices  during  the four  weeks preceding the impugned notification.  This  rise was particularly marked in Northern India.  It was in  these circumstances  that  the Government decided to  control  ex- factory  prices of sugar in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and  North Bihar.   The  Government  took  all  relevant  factors  into account in fixing the price.  This was done in the  interest of the general public in order that sugar might be available at  fair prices.  As Uttar Pradesh and North Bihar  are  the main  surplus  areas  and  feed the  deficit  areas  of  the country,  it was not necessary to control prices  elsewhere; nor was it necessary to control prices beyond the ex-factory stage as the prices in the whole. sale or the retail markets are  governed  by  ex-factory  prices.   There  was  in  the circumstances   no   question  of  discrimination   or   any unreasonable restriction on carrying on trade in sugar.  The Government did not admit that the price fixed was below  the cost  of production generally.  Consequently, it was  prayed that the petition should be dismissed. 128 the  interveners  raise the following points in  support  of their  contention that the impugned notification is  illegal and invalid (1)  (a)  The impugned notification is beyond the  ambit  of authority conferred on the Central Government under s. 3  of the Act and clause 5 of the Order, and in any case it is bad as  it  cannot  possibly subserve the purposes  of  the  Act ensuring  equitable  distribution of the  commodity  to  the consumer at a fair price; (b) The impugned notification merely fixes ex-factory prices and  is  bad, firstly, on the ground that the  Act  and  the Order  do  not authorise the Central Government to  fix  ex- factory  prices, and, secondly, on the ground that  even  if ex-factory  prices can be Axed under the Act and the  Order, the  impugned notification is still bad as it fails  to  fix prices  for the ultimate consumer which must be  done  under the Act; (2)  The  impugned  notification  imposes  an   unreasonable restriction on the right to trade under Article 19 (1)  (g),

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

inasmuch  as  (i) it compels factories to sell  sugar  at  a loss,  (ii) it fixes the price arbitrarily, and (iii)  there is  no reasonable safeguard against the, abuse of power  and no provision for a check by way of appeal or otherwise; (3)  The  impugned  notification is bad inasmuch  as  it  is discriminatory  because it fixes ex-factory prices only  for factories  in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and North Bihar and  not for  factories  in  other parts of India  and  there  is  no reasonable  classification discernible on  any  intelligible differentia  on  the  basis  of  which  prices  ’have   been controlled in certain regions only. Re. (1) (a). The  Act  deals with essential commodities which  have  been defined therein.  The preamble shows that it has been passed in  the interest of the general, public for the  control  of the  production,  supply and distribution of and  trade  and commerce  in,  certain commodities.  Section 3  of  the  Act gives  power to the Central Government to pass orders  under the  Act  if  it  is necessary or expedient  so  to  do  for maintaining   or  increasing  supplies  of   any   essential commodity or for securing    129 their  equitable  distribution  and  availability  at   fair prices.   No attack has been made on the vires of  the  Act; but  the vires of the Order relating to sugar  passed  under the  Act  and-  particularly of  the  impugned  notification fixing ex-factory prices in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and  North Bihar  have been attacked.  The Order in our opinion  merely carries out the purposes of the Act and cl. 5 thereof  gives the ambit of the powers of the Central Government in  fixing prices, and lays down the manner in which it should be  done and the factors which should be taken into consideration  in doing so.  Though in the petition, the Order was attacked on the   ground  that  it  gave  ’uncontrolled,  unguided   and unfettered’ power to the executive and imposed  unreasonable restrictions  on the right to carry on trade,  no  arguments were  addressed to us on the constitutionality of the  Order itself.   We are in this case concerned only with that  part of the Order which deals with the fixation of price.  Clause 5  provides for factors that the Government will  take  into account in fixing prices and these are: (i) price or minimum price  fixed for sugarcane, (ii) manufacturing  cost,  (iii) taxes, (iv) reasonable margin of profit for producer  and/or trade,  and (v) any incidental charges.  It is  amply  clear from  this  that  price is to be  fixed  after  taking  into account   all   reasonable  factors  which   go   into   the consideration of price fixation.- In view of this it  cannot be  said  that the Order gives ’uncontrolled,  unguided  and unfettered’   power   to  the  executive   to   fix   prices arbitrarily.   We shall proceed therefore on the basis  that the Act and the Order so far as they are concerned with  the fixation of price are valid. This  brings  us  to  the  question  whether  the   impugned notification  is  beyond  the  authority  conferred  on  the Central  Government by s. 3 of the Act and clause 5  of  the Order.’ Reading s. 3 of the Act with the preamble, it  would be  obvious  that the object of the Act is  to  provide  for control of the production, supply and distribution of, trade and  commerce in, essential commodities in the interests  of the general public, so that the 17 130 supplies of such commodities may be maintained or increased, their  equitable  distribution  secured  and  they  may   be available to the general public at fair prices.  Considering

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

the  history of sugar control and the trends which  appeared in  the market from April, 1958, it cannot possibly be  said that  the  impugned  notification  does  not  subserve   the purposes  of  the Act and the Order.  There  can  be  little doubt  that fixation of ex-factory prices of sugar mills  in the main surplus areas would have the effect of  stabilising sugar prices for the general public, which is the  consumer, at a fair level and make sugar available at fair prices.  In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government it is stated that  as  a result of this action prices have come  down  to normal  levels.   This is demonstrable -proof, if  such  was needed,   that  the  impugned  notification  subserves   the purposes of the Act.  This contention, therefore, fails. Re. (1) (b). The  argument under this head is two-fold.  It is said  that in the first instance’ s. 3 of the Act requires that  prices for the consumer only should be fixed. The object of s. 3 is undoubtedly  to secure essential commodities at fair  prices for  the  general public, i.e., the consumer.  It  is  well- known that there are three kinds of prices prevalent in  the market for a commodity like sugar, namely, ex-factory price, wholesale  price and retail price.  It is the last that  the consumer  has to pay.  It is urged that when s.  3  provides for availability of essential commodities at fair prices  to the general public it means that price can only be fixed  at the   stage  where  the  consumer  is  the  purchaser.    In particular, our attention was invited to clause (c) of s.  3 (2),  which  provides  for control of  price  at  which  any essential commodity may be bought or sold.  Now there is  no doubt  that  the object of the Act is  to  secure  essential commodities  for the consumer, i.e., the general public,  at fair  prices;  but it does not follow from  this  that  this object  can only be achieved if retail prices are fixed  and that  there is no other way of achieving it.  In  any  case, clause (c) of s. 3 (2) which speaks specifically of  control of price is very general 131 in  terms.  It provides for fixation of price at  which  any essential  commodity  may be bought or sold ;  it  does  not specify  the  stage  at which the  price  should  be  fixed. Therefore, we are of opinion that the control provided under clause (c) of s. 3 (2) is control at any of the three stages mentioned  above.   There  is  no reason  to  cut  down  the generality  of  the words used in clause (c) so as  to  make them  applicable only to the last stage, namely, the  retail price.    This  contention,  therefore,  that  s.   3   only authorises  the Central Government to fix the retail  price, i.e., the price for the consumer, fails. It  is  then urged that even if the power is  there  to  fix prices  at all stages, the Act requires that the price  must be fixed for the consumer, whether it is fixed at an earlier stage  or not.  There are no words in s. 3 (1) or s.  3  (2) (c) of the Act, which compel such an interpretation.  It  is true that the object of the Act is to ensure fair prices for the  consumer;  but if fair prices for the consumer  can  be ensured  by fixing the ex-factory price, there is no  reason why the Government should go on also to fix the wholesale or retail  price.   It  is well-known that  the  wholesale  and retail prices depend upon ex-factory price, in the case of a commodity like sugar.  Therefore if fixation of price at the ex-factory  level is enough to ensure a fair price  for  the consumer,  there is no reason why the Government should  not stop  at  that and should go on also to  fix  wholesale  and retail prices.  It is urged that the middleman who buys from the factory is not controlled and he can sell at any  price;

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

and,  therefore, the object of the Act may not be  achieved. Theoretically  this may be so and a middleman may abuse  his position.   If  he  does  so, we  have  no  doubt  that  the Government  will  intervene  as it has ample  power  to  fix wholesale  and  retail prices also.  But if the  purpose  is served  by  merely fixing the ex-factory price,  we  see  no reason  why  the Government must fix  wholesale  and  retail prices also.  The petitioners have not even alleged that  as a   matter  of  fact  the  wholesalers  and  retailers   are profiteering  and  making  it impossible  for  sugar  to  be available for the general public at a fair 132 price.   In the circumstances, it was not necessary in  fact for  the Government to fix wholesale or retail  prices.   In law,  we see no warrant for holding that under s. 3 (1)  and s.  3 (2) (c) of the Act, the Government must not  only  fix ex-factory  prices  but also wholesale  and  retail  prices. What  prices  the  Government will  fix  depend  upon  their estimate  of the situation, which would serve the object  of the  Act.   We are, therefore, of opinion that there  is  no force in this contention either. Re. (2). The  contention  under  this  head  is  that  the   impugned notification is invalid as it is an unreasonable restriction on  the petitioners’ right to carry on trade under  Art.  19 (1)  (g).  The argument is urged in three ways; namely,  (i) factories  are being compelled to sell at below the cost  of production,  (ii)  the price fixed is arbitrary,  and  (iii) there is no safeguard Against abuse of power.  The  argument that the factories are being compelled to sell at below  the cost of production is put in two ways.  It is said that  the press note issued by the Government on July 30, 1958,  shows that  the Government was of the view that prices  should  be pegged at the level at which they were in the week preceding June 27, 1958, and inasmuch as they fixed prices below  that level or even below the level at which they were at the  end of May, 1958, the prices were below the cost of  production. We must say that this is a complete misunderstanding of  the press note of July 30, 1958.  All that that press note  said was  that  prices had risen even before June  27,  1958,  in expectation  of  a  large  export  quota.   Thereafter,  the Government  were assured by the industry that  prices  would not rise further after June 27 ; but this assurance was  not kept  and prices went up further by one rupee per  maund  by the  end  of July.  It was in these circumstances  that  the Government intervened.  There was, however, no commitment in this  press note by the Government that if  they  intervened they  would fix prices at what they were either in the  week before  June  27 1958, or in the last week of  May;  nor  is there anything in the press note to suggest that the 133 prices  prevalent  on either of these two days  were  proper prices and that any price below them would not even meet the cost of production.  The press, note had nothing to do  with the cost of production; nor were the Government bound to fix the  prices  at the level of the end of June or the  end  of May.   When they eventually decided to intervene at the  end of July, they were free to take action under the Act and the Order  and  so long as the prices fixed were  in  accordance therewith, the action could not be challenged on the  ground that  it  was an unreasonable restriction on  the  right  to carry on trade under Art. 19 (1) (g).  Clause 5 of the Order lays   down  the  factors  which  have  to  be  taken   into consideration in fixing prices.  These factors include among other things a reasonable margin of profit for the  producer

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

and/or  trade and any incidental charges.  This was kept  in mind  when prices were fixed by the  impugned  notification. The petitioners have certainly filed with their affidavit  a schedule giving the cost of production.  According to  them, their  cost  of production is above the price fixed  by  the impugned notification.  This schedule has not been  admitted by  the  Government.  We see no reason to  accept  the  ipse dixit  of  the petitioners as to their cost  of  production. The  sugar crushing season begins about the end  of  October and finishes about the end of May, so that fixation of price in July, 1958, would be on the basis of the 1957-58  season. Market  prices  were available to the Government  when  they fixed the prices by the impugned notification.  In the  case of the three States’ namely, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and North Bihar,  the prices fixed by the impugned  notification  were above  the  prices prevalent in the beginning of  April  and also above the average prices for the month of April, though in  the:  case of Punjab and West Uttar  Pradesh  they  were slightly  below  the  prices of the 30th  of  April.   These prices were prevalent in the free market and must  certainly have  taken  account  of a fair margin  of  profit  for  the producer, though in the case of an individual factory due to factors for which the producer might himself be responsible, the cost of production might have been a little more. 134 Therefore,  the  prices  fixed  by  the  Government  by  the impugned  notification  can in no circumstances be  said  to have  been proved to be below the cost of  production.   The petitioners were also not unaware of this state of  affairs, and  therefore, in the rejoinder came out with the story  of distress  sales  by  the  mills in the  early  part  of  the crushing season.  We are not impressed by this story, and in any  case  there could hardly be any  question  of  distress sales in April when the crushing season was almost coming to an end.  We see therefore no reason to hold that the  prices fixed  were below the cost of production and were  therefore an  unreasonable  restriction on the petitioners’  right  to carry  on trade under Art. 19(1)(g).  This also disposes  of the second ground of argument under this Head, namely,  that the prices were arbitrary.  All relevant factors  prescribed under  el.  5  of  the  Order  were  apparently  taken  into consideration and the prices fixed themselves show that they were not arbitrary.  The last argument in this connection is that  there is no reasonable safeguard against the abuse  of power and no check by way of appeal or otherwise is provided against  the order of the Central Government.  It is  enough to  say  that  we are here dealing with  the  power  of  the Central  Government  to fix prices in the interests  of  the general  public.   It is in these  circumstances  absurd  to expect  that there would be some provision by way of  appeal or  otherwise against this power of the Central  Government. So long as the Central Government exercises its power in the manner provided by the Act and the Order-and this is what it appears  to have done-, it cannot be said that  any  further safeguard  is  necessary  in  the  form  of  an  appeal   or otherwise.  The safeguards are to be found in el. 5  itself, namely, that the Central Government must give  consideration to the relevant factors mentioned therein before fixing  the price,  and thus these factors are a check on the  power  of the  Central  Government if it is ever-minded to  abuse  the power.   We  are  therefore of  opinion  that  the  impugned notification is not an unreasonable restriction on the peti- tioners’ right to carry on trade under Art, 19(1)(g). 135 Re. (3).

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

said  that price control is imposed on factories in  Punjab, Uttar  Pradesh  and  North  Bihar  and  that  there  is   no reasonable  basis  for such clasSification  ;  factories  in other  parts of India are left uncontrolled with the  result that there is discrimination.  From the material supplied it appears  that there are 97 sugar factories in Punjab,  Uttar Pradesh  and North Bihar while there are 50 sugar  factories in  the  rest of India, of which as many as 18  are  in  the State  of  Bombay.  In the other States there are  very  few factories.,  the  lowest being in West  Bengal,  Orissa  and Kerala with one factory each and the highest being in Madhya Pradesh  with seven factories.  We also understand that  the major  part of production of sugar in this country  is  from the factories in Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and North Bihar.   Of the  97 factories which have been controlled, as many as  90 are  in  Uttar Pradesh and North Bihar and it is  these  two areas  which are what are called mainly surplus areas.   The price  of  sugar  in India depends upon  the  price  of  the factories in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.  The contention of the Government  is  that as soon as the price is  controlled  in Punjab,  Uttar Pradesh and Bihar the price for the whole  of India  is  fixed, for other States are  deficit  and  import sugar  from  these States, particularly  Uttar  Pradesh  and North  Bihar.  In these circumstances if price is  fixed  in this area, price all over India is practicalLy fixed, and it is  not  necessary  to  fix  prices  separately  so  far  as factories  in  other  States which are  said  to  be  mainly deficit,  are  concerned.  In the circumstances  we  are  of opinion, that though in form prices are fixed for  factories only  in  Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and North Bihar,  in  effect they  are fixed for the whole of India, once the  production of these three regions is controlled.  There is,  therefore, in  our opinion no discrimination in effect by the  fixation of  prices in these three regions.  The argument that  there is  discrimination  is purely theoretical, in  view  of  the economic  factors which control the price of sugar in,  this country.  Thus in fact there is no discrimination after  the control of sugar 136 prices  in these three regions and the contention  that  the factories  in the other areas are left free to sell  at  any price   is   specious  and  does  not   merit   a   moment’s consideration.   We are therefore of opinion that in  effect the  impugned notification brought about  no  discrimination between different regions or between producers and middlemen in  view  of  what we have said already in Re.  1  (b),  and consequently, it is not necessary to consider the last  part of  the  submission under this head.  There is  in  fact  no discrimination   by  the  impugned  notification  and   this contention fails on that ground. There  is  no  force therefore in this petition  and  it  is hereby dismissed with costs.                                   Petition dismissed.