http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: MAHARASHTRA RAJYA SAHAKARI SAKHAR, KARKHANA SANGH LTD.& ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/04/1998

BENCH: G.N. RAY, M. SRINIVASAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T SRINIVASAN. J.      Leave granted.      The appellants  are aggrieved by the dismissal of their writ petitions  by the  High Court  of Bombay  in which  the appellants had  challenged the  validity of  the Maharashtra Sugar Factories  (Reservation of  Areas  and  Regulation  of Crushing & Sugarcane Supply) (Amendment) October, 1997. This order was  passed in  exercise of  the powers  conferred  by Paragraphs (a),  (c) and  (f) of  sub-cl.(1) if Clause 6 and sub-cl. (a)  of Clause  9 of  the Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966 read  with Notification  of Govt. Of India, Ministry of Food, Agriculture,  Community  Development  and  Corporation (Department of  Food). No.GSR.   1127/ESS.  Com.  Sugarcane, dated 16th July 1966. 2.   Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1996 was passed by the Govt. of India  under section  3 of  the Essential Commodities Act 1955. Clause 6 (a), (c) AND (f) thereof reads as follows:           " (a)   reserve any area where      sugarcane is  grown (hereinafter in      this clause referred to as reserved      area) for  a factory  having regard      to the  crushing  capacity  of  the      factory,   the    availability   of      sugarcane in  the reserved area and      the need  for production  of sugar,      with a view to enabling the factory      to   purchase   the   quantity   of      sugarcane required by it;           (b) ************************           (c) fix,  with respect  to any      specified  sugarcane   growers   or      sugarcane  growers   generally   in      reserved  area,   the  quantity  or      percentage of  sugarcane  grown  by      such grower  or growers as the case      may  be,   is   a   member   of   a      cooperative  society  of  sugarcane      growers operating  in the  reserved      area, through  such society,  shall

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

    supply to the factory concerned:           (d) *************************           (e) **************************           (f) prohibit  or  restrict  or      otherwise regulate  the  export  of      sugarcane from any area including a      reserved area)  except under and in      accordance with  a permit issued in      this behalf." Clause 11  of the  said Order enables the Central Government to direct  by Notification  in official  gazette that powers conferred upon it  by that  order shall be exercised also by any officer  or authority  of the  Central Government  or  a State Government  or any  officer or  authority of the State Government  subject   to  such   restrictions,   exceptions, conditions, if any, as may be specified in the direction. In exercise of  the said  power under  clause 11,  the  Central Government issued a Notification dated 16th July 1966 in the following terms:         "N O T I F I C A T I O N      New Delhi, the 16th July, 1966      G.S.R.    1127/Ess.  Com./Sugarcane      :-    In  exercise  of  the  powers      conferred by  clause  (11)  of  the      Sugarcane (control) Order, 1966 and      in     supersession      of     the      notification of  the Government  of      India in  the late Ministry of Food      and  Agriculture   (Department   of      Food)          No.           G.S.R.      263/Ess.com./Sugarcane  dated   the      20th  February,  1964  the  Central      Government  hereby   directs   that      powers conferred  on it  by clauses      6,7,8 and 9 of the said Order shall      be exercisable  also by  the  State      Governments  of   Andhra   Pradesh,      Assam,   Bihar,   Gujrat,   Kerala,      Madhya         Pradesh,     Madras,      Maharashtra,    Mysore,     Orissa,      Punjab, Rajasthan,  Uttar  Pradesh,      and  the   Lieutenant  governor  of      Pondicherry within  their or  ,  as      the case  may  be,  his  respective      jurisdiction.           [No.2(6)/66-S.Py]      K.L. PASRICHA,  JT. SECY." 3.   Thus the  power conferred  on the Central Government by Clause 6  of the Sugar (Control) order, 1966 was exercisable also by  the State  Governments mentioned  in the  aforesaid Notification which  included the  State of  Maharashtra.  In 1984,   the State  Government passed  the Maharashtra  Sugar Factories (Reservation of Areas and Regulation of Crushing & Sugarcane Supply)  Order 1984. The necessity for passing the said order  was set  out in  detail in  the preamble  to the order itself.  It is unnecessary to reproduce the same here. 4.   Clause 2(1) of the said order defines a ’reserved area’ as the  area  reserved  for  factory  as  specified  in  the schedule pertaining   to  that  factory.  Clauses  3  and  5 thereof are in the following terms:           "3. Reservation of areas - (1)      Having  regard   to  the   crushing      capacity of  sugar  factories  and,      the  yield   of  sugarcane  in  the      reserved areas,  and the  need  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

    production of  sugar, the  area  as      specified in  each of the schedules      is  hereby reserved for the factory      mentioned in  that schedule, with a      view to enabling it to purchase the      quantity of  sugarcane required  by      it.           (2) Subject  to the provisions      of clauses  4 and  5 of this order,      no  sugar  factory  shall  purchase      cane or  accept  supplies  of  cane      from cane  growers, except from the      area reserved for that factory.           5.  Regulation  of  Supply  of      Sugarcane-   (1) A  permit  Officer      may  allow   a  sugar   factory  to      purchase cane or to accept supplies      of  cane  from  cane  growers  from      areas other  than the area reserved      for it  under clause  3  if  he  is      satisfied that any of the following      circumstances exist namely:-           (a) In the event of production      of cane  in the  area reserved  for      the factory  being not adequate for      enabling it  to reach optimum level      of crushing;           (b) In  the event  of  surplus      production of  cane  in  the  areas      reserved for  other factories which      those factories  are  not  able  to      crush during the crushing season.           (c)  In   the  event  of  cane      grower or  cane  growers  from  the      area  reserved   for  a  particular      factory declining to supply came to      the said  factory on account of any      of the  following reasons, if found      justified by the Permit Officer:-           (i)   Non-payment    or   late      payment or  cane price by the sugar      factory; or           (ii) Non-fulfilment  of any of      the  obligations   by   the   sugar      factory arising  out  of  agreement      between the  cane  grower  or  cane      growers and the sugar factory; or           (iii)  Discrimination  by  the      sugar factory in harvesting of cane      and thereby   causing  loss to  the      cane grower or the cane growers:           Provided that  before  passing      any order  under  this  sub-clause,      for any  of the reasons, the Permit      Officer  shall   give  the  parties      concerned a  reasonable opportunity      of being heard in person of through      the authorised representative." 5.   The validity of the said order of 1984 was challenge in the High  Court of  Bombay. a  Full Bench of the Bombay High Court disposed   of  the proceedings with certain directions to the  State Government  in its  judgment dated  23.9.1988. That judgment  was the  subject-matter of  appeals  in  this Court  in   Civil  Appeals   No.522  of  1989  etc.  etc.  - Maharashtra Rajya  Sahkari Sakkar Karkhana Sangh Ltd. & Ors.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

Versus State  of  Maharashtra  &  Ors.  This  court  by  its judgment dated April 18, 1995 set aside the directions given by the  Full Bench Of the High Court and upheld the validity of the  order of  the State  Government.   The  judgment  is reported in  1995 Supp.  (3) S.C.C.  475. In Paragraph  2 of the judgment  the directions issued by the Full Bench of the High Court and the reasons thereof were set out as follows:           "2. The  directions issued  by      the Full Bench are as under:           "We are therefore of the view,      that  unless   provisions  for  the      following are made in it, the State      Order will not be valid-           (i) The  sugarcane-growers who      are not  members of  the factory or      factories   to   which   they   are      required to  supply to  which  they      are  required   to   supply   their      sugarcane shall  be  paid  for  the      sugarcane  supplied   by  them  the      price sugarcane  supplied  by  them      the price  calculated at the market      rate prevailing  in the locality at      the date of the sale;           (ii) The  market rate   may be      as  agreed   between  the  parties,      namely,  the  sugarcane-grower  and      the factory or factories concerned.      If there  is any  dispute over  it,      the same  should be  resolved by an      independent authority which  may be      created under the Order such as the      one under  clause 12 of the present      Order.  The   authority   concerned      should    decide     the    dispute      expeditiously  after   hearing  the      parties and by a speaking order;           (iii)     No      unauthorised      deductions on any           account      should be  made by the factory from      the  price   to  be   paid  to  the      sugarcane-grower    without     his      consent.   The State  Order  should      provide for  a machinery similar to      the above  to hear and grant to the      sugarcane-grower,       expeditious      relief if  he has  any complaint in      that behalf."      The reasons  for  these  directions      were twofold,  one the  non-members      were not  bound by  the price fixed      under  bye-laws  framed  under  the      Cooperative  Sugar  Act  and  other      that there  was no machinery in the      zoning Order  issued by  the  State      Government to  hear the non-members      before the  price  fixed.    Before      examining whether these reasons are      well founded  in law leading to the      impugned directions it is necessary      to narrate  in brief  the necessity      which    impelled    the    central      Government to  grant protection  to      sugar industry  and consequently to      control the supply and distribution

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

    of    the     sugarcane     without      sacrificing  the  interest  of  the      cane-grower." After referring to Clause 5 of the State Government’s order, this Court said in paragraphs 36, 37 & 38 as follows:           "36.    Clauses (5) prescribes      the situations  in which  one sugar      factory will  be permitted  by  the      prescribed  authority  to  purchase      sugarcane from  the zone of another      sugar factory.  It does not provide      for  the   caone-grower  seeking  a      permit for  sale  of  his  cane  to      another  sugar  factory  (than  the      factory within whose zone he may be      situated) even  if any   or all the      conditions prescribed in the clause      are satisfied.  Take a case where a      sugar factory  indulges in  all the      three   irrularities  mentioned  in      sub-clause (d) of clause (5), viz.,      it does  not pay  the price of cane      at the  proper time,  it  does  not      adhere  to  the  agreement  it  has      thereby causing  loss to  the cane-      growers - even then the cane-grower      cannot apply for permit to sell his      cane to  whomsoever he  likes.  All      that  probably  he  can  do  is  to      complain.  But  he  will  get  some      relief only  when there  is another      factory (which,  of course, has its      own  zone)  which  is  prepared  to      purchase cane  from this  zone  and      applies for  permit to  the  Permit      Officer to  purchase cane from this      zone. If  it does not so apply, the      grower within  the  first  zone  is      helpless. That  is not  being  fair      and just  to the  growers.  It  is,      therefore,     necessary  that  the      state Government may suitably amend      the Zoning  Order so  as to provide      that in  a case  where any  of  the      three  circumstances  mentioned  in      clauses 5(d)  are present  it would      be  open  to  the  cane-growers  to      apply to  the specified officer for      permission  to   supply  his   cane      outside the zone. In such an event,      it may  be open  to the  officer to      designate the  factory to which the      grower   should   sell   his   cane      ensuring that  the  grower  gets  a      price which  is not  less than  the      price obtained in his zone.           37.     The  State  Government      would be  further well  advised  to      get the matter thrashed out, before      the next crushing season commences,      by an  Expert Committee  comprising      of economists and financial experts      well  versed   in  price  fixation,      particularly    in     agricultural      sector. This  exercise  has  become

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

    imperative after the enforcement of      Zoning Order.   In fact when Zoning      Order was  introduced the  State at      that time  should  have  got  these      aspects  examined.   However,   the      price  equation   since  1984   has      undergone tremendous  upsurge.  the      escalation is manifold.  Benefit of      higher   price    of   sugar   must      percolate  to   growers  as   well.      Therefore.   the    Committee   may      examine -           (a) If  the fixation  of State      Advised  Price  Uniformly  for  the      entire State as it is being done in      other   States,    or   at    least      separately for  different zones, as      the normal  recovery in  the  zones      varies, would be more feasible;           (b) If  the  additional  price      worked out  in the manner indicated      in Schedule  II of Control Order of      1966  is   more  advantageous   and      beneficial to the growers. If it be      so it  may opt  for the  same as it      would avoid tedious exercise by the      Ministerial Committee  and have the      benefit of uniformity;           (c) The  Committee may further      examine whether  Rs.600  which  has      been paid  by the  factories to the      non-growers  under   interim  order      passed by this Court would not be a      reasonable minimum  price for 1995-      96 and  may furnish  the basis  for      fixation of price for future years;           (d) It  may also  suggest ways      and   means for  improving yield by      the sugar  factories  and  reducing      overhead  expenses and eliminating,      possible paper loss;           (e) It would further be in the      interest of  the Government  to ask      the Committee  to  examine  if  the      shortcomings  pointed  out  by  the      Full Bench  in other  regard can be      rectified and rationalised; and           (f) The  Committee may examine      whether  Bye-law   65   should   be      applied to non-members or not.           38.   Although    the    price      fixation  has  not  been  found  to      suffer from  any infirmity  yet due      to passage  of time,   nearly eight      or nine  years,  since  this  price      fixation was  challenged  and  with      rise of price all around it appears      expedient  to   dispose  of   these      appeals with  following  directions      to ensure  smooth functioning  both      for the past and future:           (i) The directions of the Full      Bench in  para 25  of the  judgment      shall stand set aside.           (ii) The  State Government may

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

    take  appropriate  steps  to  amend      clause (5)  of the  Zoning Order so      as to protect the cane-growers.           (iii)   The   Government   may      appoint a  Committee of  Experts to      study   and   examine   the   price      structure in  the light of what has      been stated earlier.           (iv)  Even  though  the  order      issued  by   the  State  Government      determining price  for each factory      is upheld  but since in consequence      of the  order passed  by  the  High      Court an  interim order was granted      by this  Court  and  the  factories      were directed  to pay Rs.600 to the      Cane-growers and they were directed      to  furnish   bank  guarantee   for      Rs.145  it  is  directed  that  the      amount paid  by the factories shall      not be  liable to recovery from the      cane-growers.    But    the    bank      guarantee    furnished    by    the      appellants or sugar factories shall      stand discharged.           (v) It  is made clear that the      direction  not  to  recover  Rs.600      from non-growers  would not entitle      any  member    of  the  cooperative      society or  the cooperative society      itself to  claim that it was liable      to be  paid  Rs.600  for  its  cane      during the years in dispute." 6.    The State Government appointed an Expert Committees as directed by  this Court  but the  said Committee  did not go into the  aspect of  zoning and confined itself to the price of sugarcane.  There was  an agitation by the farmers in the State according to whom the Government order of 1984 had led to  an  unsatisfactory  situation  warranting  an  amendment thereof. The  State  Government  appointed  a  Committee  on 6.1.1996 to  take a  decision on  zoning. The  Committee was headed by  the Deputy  Chief Minister of the State. Based on the  recommendations  made  by  that  Committee,  the  State Government passed  the impugned  order amending the order of 1984 by  introducing certain  provisos to Clause 3(2) of the order of 1984. The same reads as follows:           "In     Maharashtra      Sugar      Factories (Reservation of Areas and      Regulation    of    Crushing    and      Sugarcane Supply) Order, 1984, -           (i)  in   clause  3,   to  the      condition No.  (2),  the  following      provisos shall be added:           Provided that  in  case  of  a      Cooperative  Sugar   Factory,   the      cane-growers who  are not member of      the Cooperative  Society, shall  be      free to  supply their  cane to  any      factory of their choice;           Provided further that a member      of  a   Cooperative  sugar  factory      shall be  bound to supply sugarcane      to that  Cooperative sugar  factory      in the  ratio of shares held by him      and area under sugarcane as per the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

    bye-laws of  the Co-operative sugar      factory and  he  will  be  free  to      supply excess  cane, if any, to any      factory of  his choice  be entering      into agreement  or contract to that      effect:           Provided also  that  the  Non-      members cane  growers in  case of a      Cooperative sugar factory and cane-      growers  in  case  of  other  sugar      factories shall  be free  to  their      sugarcane to  any factory  of their      choice by  entering into  agreement      or contract  to that  effect.  Same      provision  will   apply  to  excess      sugarcane   or    the   member   of      Cooperative Sugar factories:           Provided  also   that  if  any      cane-grower  fails  to  enter  into      such agreement  for supply  of  his      sugarance,    responsibility     of      disposal  of  such  cane  shall  be      entirely his own. There shall be no      responsibility   on    any    sugar      factory, Cooperative  or  otherwise      or on  the  State  Government,  for      crushing of any such cane." 7.   It is the aforesaid amendment which  is attacked by the appellants. The  High Court  dismissed the  writ petition of the appellants  observing that  they did   not find that the impugned order  was in  any way  illegal or unreasonable and that the order would appear to ensure better sugarcane price to the  farmers who are not members of any Cooperative sugar factory. 8.   Before us, Mr. F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel for the appellants has advanced three contentions:      The first contention is that the State Government being a  delegatee   from  the   Central  Government   under   the Notification dated  16th July  1966 is not empowered to pass an order inconsistent with the Sugar (Control) Order of 1966 passed by  the Central Government. Our attention is drawn to Section 6  of  the  Essential  Commodities  Act  and  it  is contended that  the Sugar  (Control) Order of 1966 being one under  Section   3  of   the  said  Act  shall  have  effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment   other than that Act or any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than that Act. It is argued that  the impugned  order is in exercise of the power conferred under  clause 6  (1) of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966 read  with the Notification dated 16th July 1966 and it cannot therefore run  counter to sub-clause 2 of Clause 6 of the Sugar (Control) Order of 1966. The said Clause is in the following terms:           "Every    sugarcane    grower,      sugarcane    growers    cooperative      society and  factory, to whom or to      which an order made under paragraph      (c)  of   sub-clause  (1)  applies,      shall  be   bound  to   supply   or      purchase, as  the case may be, that      quantity of  sugarcane  covered  by      the agreement  entered  into  under      the  paragraph   and   any   wilful      failure  on   the   part   of   the      sugarcane     grower,     sugarcane

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

    grower’s cooperative society of the      factory to  do so, shall constitute      a breach  of the provisions of this      order:      Provided  that   where  a   default      committed by any sugarcane growers’      cooperative society  is due  to any      failure  on   the   part   of   any      sugarcane grower,  being a   member      of such society, such society shall      not be  bound to  make supplies  of      sugarcane to  the  factory  to  the      extent of such default." According to  him the  impugned amendment is contrary to the above clause. 9.   We are unable to accept this argument of learned senior counsel.  Clause  6(1)  only  prescribes  the  matters  with reference to which the Central Government may pass orders by notifying  in   the  official  gazette.  By  virtue  of  the Notification dated  16.7.66, the  State Government  is  also empowered   to do  so. Sub-cl.(2)  of Clause  6 of the Sugar (Control) Order  1966 is  dependent upon an order made under paragraph, (c)  of sub-cl.(1)  of Clause 6. Admittedly there is no  order passed  by the  Central Government under Clause 6(1) (c).  Such an order was made by the State Government in 1984 as referred to by us earlier. The said order of 1984 is amended  by   the  present   impugned  order  of  the  State Government. It  is not  contended before  us that  the State Government has  no power  to amend the order of 1984 or that the  power  delegated  by  the  Central  Government  by  the notification dated  16.7.1966 got exhausted with the passing of the order of 1984 and thereafter the State Government had no power to issue another order. hence, there is no merit in the contention  that the  State Government  has no  power to pass the impugned order. 10.  There is  also no  merit in  the  contention  that  the impugned order  is in  conflict  with  the  sugar  (Control) Order,  1966   issued  under  Section  3  of  the  Essential Commodities Act.  As pointed out already the said order does not by  itself make any provision for the matters set out in Clause 6(1). Hence the first contention is rejected. 11.  The second  contention is that the State Government has exercised its  power arbitrarily  and discriminated  against the factory owners. According to learned counsel the various observations made  by this Court in its judgment dated April 18, 1995  while upholding  the Government  Order, 1984  have been completely ignored by the State Government and that the Expert Committee  appointed pursuant  to the direction given by this  Court has  not  made  any  recommendation  for  the present  amendment.   It  is  also  contended  that  another Committee appointed  by the  State Government  had time till 30.8.1997 but  the impugned  order was  passed even in April without waiting  for the  report of the second Committee. We are unable  to see  any merit  in this  contention. We  have already referred  to  the    circumstance  that  the  Expert Committee appointed pursuant to the directions given by this Court  in   the  judgment  dated  April  18,  1995  had  not considered the  aspect of  zoning and had confined itself to the price  of sugarcane.  The  present  amendment  was  made pursuant to  the suggestions made by the Committee appointed by the  State Government  on 6.1.1996.  The reasons  for the present amendment  as suggested by the Committee are set out in the  counter-affidavit filed  by the  State Government as follows:           "REASONS  FOR   AMENDMENT   OF

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

    ZONING ORDER 1984           In  the   background  of   the      aforesaid facts  it  was  necessary      for the State Government to protect      the interest  of  the  members  and      non-members   cane    growers    by      permitting  them   to  sell   their      sugarcane outside  the zone  of the      factory so  that they could get the      most remunerative  prices  for  his      sugarcane. It  was necessary  to do      so as it was found that :      1.  The   factories  neglect   non-      members totally  in the season when      the cane  is in  excess than  their      capacity.      2.  In   this  situation  even  the      members  are   restricted  to   the      extent of their shares.      3. The large difference in the cane      price within  the same  village  in      two different  factories goes up to      Rs.300 per metric ton (R-7).      4.  the   amendment  is   only   an      extension  to  the  earlier  zoning      order 1984,  clause 5(1)  (d) (para      50) .      5. The  failure of the factories to      enroll  non-members  for  political      reasons and  also on account of the      membership granted  in favour  non-      cane growers.      6. Non-members  is deprived  of the      facilities granted  to the  members      i.e. supply  of seeds, fertilizers,      implements, incentives  to drip and      sprinkler    irrigation,     credit      facilities and  supply of  sugar at      concessional rate.      7. The  alarming drop  of sugarcane      cultivation from 1995-96 to 1997-98      crushing season from 560 lakh M. T.      to 312 lakh M.T.      8.    The     expected    sugarcane      production in  India  in  the  year      2000 will  be 2000  lakh  M.T.  and      Maharashtra  is  expected  to  grow      about 800 lakh M.T.      9. There  is a trend to divert from      sugarcane  to   other  crops   like      soyabeen, cotton  and horticultural      crops   which   is   100%   subsidy      programme of  the State.  The  area      has  gone  up  under  horticultural      development by  nearly  five  times      (para 15)      10. The  nearly 90% contribution is      by the  State Government  to  these      factories (para 5).      11. Large  scale  mismanagement  of      the sugar  factories leading to law      cane  price   and  drop   in   cane      cultivation (Para 13).      12. Zoning  has not yielded desired      results during the last 13 years."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

12.  In view  of the above, it is not possible to accept the contention that  the State  Government has acted arbitrarily in  amending   the  order   of  1984.   Nor  is   there  any discrimination against  the factory  owners. In  fact,  this Court has in its judgment dated April 18, 1995 taken note of the plight  of the  growers of  sugarcane and  directed  the State Government  to take  appropriate steps to amend Clause 5(1) of  the Zoning  Order. (see  paragraphs 37  & 38 of the judgment already  quoted). The  State Government has instead of amending Clause 5 amended Clause 3(2) in order to improve the position  of growers and in particular those who are not members of cooperative societies. 13.  The third  contention is  that the  amendment is wholly unreasonable and  it will  put an  end  to  the  cooperative movement. In  support of this contention, reliance is placed on the following observation made by this Court in Paragraph 30 of its judgment dated April 18,1995:           "30. The  dual pricing system,      one, for members and other for non-      members  or   the  option  to  non-      members to  sell to  the factory of      their choice may be negative of the      zoning concept  and may  affect the      cooperative movement  in the State.      Dr. Singhvi  may be right that even      before zoning  Order was issued the      Cooperative movement  was there and      the benefits  that a  member of the      society derives  may not  result in      affecting the  system  largely  but      any policy  which has  the tendency      of shaking  the system  rudely must      be avoided." It is submitted that the present amendment has the effect of practically annulling the cooperative system. 14.  We are unable to accept this contention. We do not find any justification in the facts and circumstances of the case for the  contention that  the cooperative  system would   be affected by  the present  amendment. We  find that  it is  a balancing act  on   the part  of  the  State  Government  to protect the  interests of  farmers who  are not  members  of cooperative societies.  After the  passing of the 1984 order it  has   been  found  by  the  State  Government  that  the provisions  thereof  could  not  enable  the  Government  to achieve the  objects with  which it was passed. The counter- affidavit filed  by the  State Government   has  set out  in detail the  various  circumstances  which  necessitated  the State Government to re-consider the zoning order of 1984. Our attention  has also  been drawn to the counter-affidavit filed by  the Govt. of India in which the stand taken by the State government  has been  fully supported.  Paragraph 9 of the said counter-affidavit reads as follows:           "9. I  further submit that the      intention of  Zoning  or  reserving      cane areas  for each  sugar factory      is not to introduce any monopoly to      any sugar  factory but only to sub-      serve  to   the  interest   of  the      farmers,    sugar-factories     and      consumers at large both at times of      shortage of  cane production and in      years of surplus.           I  further   submit  that  the      Government of  Maharashtra  may  be      allowed to  operate the order dated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 12  

    19th November, 1997 till the report      of the  high Powered  Committee set      up by the Government of India Under      the  chairmanship   of   Sh:   B.B.      Mahajan  to  enquire  into  various      legislations relating  to the Sugar      Industry  in  India  including  the      fixation of Statutory minimum Price      of cane  is received and a decision      is taken  by the  Government in the      matter." 15.  It  is  also  pointed  out  to  us  that  the  impugned amendment is  pursuant to  a policy  decision of  the  State Government to  protect the  interests of  the farmers on the one hand and the cooperative societies on the other. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the impugned order is vitiated by  mala fides.  In such  circumstances. It  is not possible for  this Court  to interfere with the order issued by the  State Government.  We  do  not  also  find  anything unreasonable in the impugned amendment. 16.  In the result, we agree with the views expressed by the High Court and dismiss the appeal. 17.  The transfer petitions are for transferring proceedings pending on  the file  of the High Court in order to be heard along with the above appeal. We do not find any necessity to withdraw those  proceedings to  this Court. Now that we have disposed of  the appeal  in the above manner, the High Court may  dispose   of  the  proceedings  pending  before  it  in accordance with this judgment. 18.  The  Civil   Appeal  and  the  transfer  petitions  are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.