The sole issue, which is sought to be raised before us by the learned counsel for the appellants, is that in view of the judgment of the Suprem e Court in Mahalakshmi Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. and Anr . vs. Union of I ndia and others , AI R 2009 Supreme Court 792 , additional price paid and the State Advisory Price (SAP) are factors to be taken into account while fixing the levy price for sugar. In the said judgment, the second question framed and examined was as to whether the Central Governm ent while fixing the price of levy sugar under Section 3 (3-C) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as “the EC Act”) was liable to account for the SAP fixed by the State of U.P. and mandatorily required to be paid by the sugar manufacturer to the sugarcane grower. The Suprem e Court opined that when the legislative policy reflected in a statutory provision, the Court, while being called upon to determine as to whether sam e has been com plied with or not, must apply the rule of purposive construction. The absence of mention of SAP even if not specifically provided for in Section 3(3-C) of the EC Act was held not to preclude its consideration for determination of the levy price once it is found to be a relevant consideration for determination of such levy sugar price. However, in the operative paragraph-71, it has been clearly observed that this is a law laid down for the future and, therefore, while directing the Central Governm ent to re-fix price of levy sugar, it would keep this direction confined only to parties before the Suprem e Court including the interveners.
