JUDGMENT Amitava Lala, J.
1. A writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48159 of 2002 (West U.P. Sugar Mills Association and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.) was proceeded before the Division Bench of this Court, in which an interim order was passed on 29th April, 2005. Many Sugar Mills including this petitioner are members of such association. The relevant part of the interim order passed therein is as follows:
Without entering into any controversy about the period of taking drastic steps, we want to proceed with the fact that the petitioner should not be relieved by any blanket order without providing any condition of payment of any amount but to proceed with the proceedings before the Cane Commissioner to settle the issue. There should be test of bonafide about making payment by the petitioners. Such bonafide test will be occupied by the condition to be imposed by the Court. Normally we accept a principle of payment 50% of the amount in the case of default. Accordingly we apply such test but in two parts i.e. 25% each because of huge quantum. The petitioners will pay 25% of the alleged defaulted amount within one month from today and rest 25% within six months from today. In case first installment is paid by the petitioners, no coercive action will be initiated and/or be proceeded by the respondents as against the petitioners.
2. One of the contesting parties preferred an appeal from there before the Supreme Court, being Civil Appeal No. 1646 of 2006, whereunder an order was obtained on 6th March, 2006 as follows:
Leave granted.
Keeping in view the fact that another Division Bench of this Court in West U.P. Sugar Mills Association and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. SLP (C) No. 23495/2004, has directed payment of rest of the amount calculated in terms of the order passed by the State, fixing cane price, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct the members of respondent No. 1 to pay the difference in price within eight weeks from date. The payment made by the Mill owners shall be taken into consideration while calculating the amount payable. It is made clear that if any of the members of respondent No. 1 has any other cause of action the same would not be affected by reason of this order. We are informed that the matter has been heard in part by the High Court.
We make it clear that we have not applied our minds to the merit of the matter. However, this order shall not affect those sugar mills which have been referred to BIFR in term of the provisions of the U.P. Sugar Cane (Regulation of Supply and Production) Act, 1983.
The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.
3. The present writ petition is an independent writ petition filed by the aforesaid Sugar Mill, irrespective of being member of the association, prior to passing of the order by the Supreme Court. Such writ petition was made 'connected' with the writ petition of the association pending before this Court.
4. In this writ petition the following prayers are made:
(i) To issue a suitable writ order or direction quashing the Recovery Certificate dated 15.4.2005 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) issued by the Respondent No. 2;
(ii) To issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.5.2005 (Annexure No. 13 to this writ petition) passed by respondent No. 5;
(iii) To issue a suitable writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to pass appropriate orders on the applications for initiation of arbitration dated 26.5.2005 (Anneure-12 to the writ petition) in accordance with the provisions of Rule 108 of the Rules of 1954.
(iv) To issue a suitable writ order or direction restraining the Respondents from taking any coercive steps under the order dated 31.5.2005 till the disposal of arbitration proceedings initiated by the petitioner under Rule 108 of the Rules of 1954;
(v) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the petitioner.
(vi) Award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner.
5. The petitioner alleged that during the pendency of the writ petition prayer for referring the dispute to arbitration was rejected by the authority. As a result whereof an amendment application was made to incorporate such factum into this writ petition. However, such application was formally allowed. Now after disposal of this appeal by the Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that since the Supreme Court in disposing the appeal only considered the issue of payment leaving aside other issues as regards merit to be decided by the High Court, therefore, the point of referring the dispute to arbitration can be decided herein. The petitioner contended that they have made over payment, therefore, they are entitled to refund. If the rejection of arbitration as made by the Cane Commissioner is allowed to sustain then the petitioner will be remedyless in view of Rule 108 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules 1954. According to them it is an admitted position that the petitioner made over payment but the State respondent/s treated such over payment as premium not an incentive. The gravity of the situation is such that a Board of members or Arbitrators shall be directed to adjudicate the matter.
6. We are of the view that the issue raised herein is not an independent issue but arising out of payment. The scope of reference either to statutory arbitration or to an authority or to the Board of authorities of the State is only for quantification of the amount due and payable. The order of the Supreme Court dated 6th March, 2006 is categorical to that extent. The (sic)vant part is reiterated as follows:
The payment made by the Mill owners shall be taken into consideration while calculating the amount payable.
7. Therefore the order of the Supreme Court either for payment or for calculation is complete. Nothing can be added by the High Court. The writ petition is, in effect, infructuous.
8. Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
9. No order is passed as to costs.