Summary
The Supreme Court rejected a sugar mill’s claim to eastern-zone levy prices for the 1984–85 and 1985–86 crushing seasons. Zonal classification depended on expert assessment and relevant policy factors, and revenue-district boundaries did not define the zones. Other mills in the same district, or the appellant’s later transfer to another zone, did not establish discriminatory treatment for the disputed years.
Issues
- Whether placing the appellant in the central levy-price zone while other Sitapur mills were in the eastern zone was discriminatory.
Held
- Levy prices were fixed for zones, not individual factories, on expert cost assessments and relevant factors. Mere location in the same revenue district did not establish parity where the comparator units’ transfers had been separately considered on their merits. (¶ 7)
- The mill showed neither invidious discrimination nor statutory violation. A later decision placing it in the eastern zone did not retrospectively make its earlier classification unlawful, as policy decisions depended on the Government’s assessment at the relevant time. (¶ 7)
- The challenge to the validity of Sections 3(2)(f) and 3(3C) of the Essential Commodities Act had not been pressed in the High Court and was not decided. (¶¶ 2, 3)
Result
Appeals dismissed without costs. Government permitted to withdraw the amounts secured by the Registry deposit and bank guarantees, together with accrued interest.