(ORDER OF THE COURT WAS MADE BY S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J.) The writ petition was preferred by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 5th respondent to make payments to all its registered cane growers at the statutory minimum rate for the year 2003-2004, i.e., Rs.730/MT for 8.5% return with proportionate rate based on the percentage of return. Further prayer was made to direct the respondent to pay interest @ 15% p.a. for the period from October, 2003.
2. The writ petition was preferred in the year 2007. The matter relates to payment of statutory minimum price to the cane growers, who supply sugarcane to the 5th respondent company. The 5th respondent company has filed a counter affidavit and has taken plea that it has already acted in the interest of the cane growers. It is stated that the Government fixed the statutory price of sugarcane for the year 2003-04 at Rs.730/MT with 8.5% return. That was challenged before this Court in W.P. No.1569/04. In the said case, by interim order dated 3rd Feb., 2004, this Court directed to pay Rs.655/MT with 8.5% recovery. The said case is still pending. But, in the meantime, the 5th respondent has paid the amount in favour of the cane growers, who supplied sugarcane for the period 2003-04 and subsequent period. For the period 2003-04, a sum of Rs.869/MT has been paid by the 5th respondent, i.e., on the basis of the calculation of Rs.735/MT with 10.10% return. The following are the date with regard to price fixed and payment made under the control order :-
Sl. No. Sugar Year Clause 3/A Price (Rs.) Notfn. No. & Date Rate/mt applicable to Respon (Rs.) SAP Ref.
Per/Mt Applicable to Respon (Rs.) 5A Price announced by C.O. Sugars (Rs.) Notfn. No. & Date Rate/mt applicable to Respon (Rs.) Actual price paid by the respond (Rs.) 1 01-02 620.50 G.S.R. 867(E) ESS.COMM./Sugarcane 27.11.2001 693.50 Nil 0.00 Rc. No.12264/Cane 1/2005-9 dt. 2.5.2006 693.5 765.00 2 02-03 645.00 G.S.R. 821(E) ESS.COMM./Sugarcane 12.12.2002 683.00 Nil 0.00 Rc. No.12264/Cane 1/2005-9 dt. 2.5.2006 683.00 735.00 3 03-04 730.00 G.S.R. 44(E) ESS.COMM./Sugarcane 14.01.2004 866.00 Nil 866.00 869.00 03-04 655.00 As per court order 778.30 Nil 9.80 Rc. No.12264/Cane 1/2005-9 dt. 2.5.2006 788.10 869.00 4 04-05 745.00 G.S.R. 92(E) ESS.COMM./Sugarcane 24.02.2005 806.60 Nil Not finalised 915.00 5 05-06 795.00 G.S.R.1727(E) ESS.COMM./Sugarcane 22.03.2006 795.00 R.C. No.31254/Cane-1/2005 Dt.07/02/06 1014.00 Not finalised 1015.00 6 06-07 802.50 G.S.R. 766(E) ESS.COMM./Sugarcane 22.12.2006 802.50 R.C. No.25646/Cane-1/06 Dt 12/12/06 1025.00 Not finalised 1026.00
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while accepted that amount for the period 2003-04 has already been paid at the rate prescribed by the State, it was submitted that the amount for the period October, 2003, was paid on the basis of old rate fixed and difference on the basis of the new rate was paid subsequently. It is for the said reason he requested the court to direct the 5th respondent to pay interest on the difference amount paid for the month of October, 2003. According to learned counsel for the 5th respondent, the rate of cane is fixed by the Central Government for the period upto September of the calendar year. The rate for the period October onwards is fixed sometime in October. In the year 2003, no rate was fixed for the month of October, 2003, which was subsequently fixed by the Central Government sometime in January, 2004. In absence of such notification by the Central Government, payment for the month of October, 2003, was made on the basis of the old rate, i.e., Rs.735/= per MT with 10.10% return. Subsequently, when the new rate was prescribed in January, 2004, the difference amount was paid, which comes around Rs.53/= per MT. He referred to an additional counter affidavit filed by the 5th respondent wherein the following statement has been made :- (2) This respondent agrees to settle the statutory interest for the delay in settlement of differential sum of Rs.53/= per MT for cane purchases of October, 2003, for the period between the due date in October, 2003 and the date of payment out, within the period as directed by this Hon'ble Court.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. From the stand taken by the 5th respondent it will be clear that there was no laches on the part of the 5th respondent, who settled the dues on the basis of the Central Government's prescription. For October, 2003, the 5th respondent has given a valid explanation for not paying the difference amount in October, 2003, which was paid subsequently in the beginning of 2004. In this background, this Court is not inclined to pass any order against the 5th respondent. However, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the undertaking given by the 5th respondent to settle the statutory interest for the delay in settlement of differential sum of Rs.53/= per MT for the cane purchases in the month of October, 2003, for the period between the due date in October 2003 and the date of payment out, we direct the 5th respondent to pay such interest within a period of one month. The writ petition stands disposed of. Consequently, W.V.M.P. No.1 of 2007 is closed. But there shall be no order as to costs.