Markandeya Katju, C.J.
1. These Letter Patent Appeals have been filed against a common judgment by the learned Single Judge of this court on 24.09.2004 in Writ Petition Nos. 2163/1996, 4504/1997 and 6154/2003. Since all these appeals involve common questions of law and fact, we are disposing them off together.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. The facts in detail have been set out in the judgment of the learned Single Judge, and hence we are not repeating the same except where necessary.
4. The appellant in LPA No. 1131/04 Mawana Sugar Ltd. (formerly known as M/s SIEL Ltd.), and other petitioners filed writ petitions challenging the right of the Food Corporation of India to make deductions for the short supply and/or wet / damaged supply of levy sugar in the past from amounts to be paid in the subsequent bills of the sugar mills.
5. To understand the controversy we may state a few facts. Sugar is an essential commodity under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Under Section 3(2)(f) of the said Act, the Central Government has the power to direct any manufacturer of sugar to sell sugar produced by it to the Central Government or a State Government or to a body owned or controlled by the government, for the purpose of making sugar available to the public at a fair price. This is known as levy sugar, which is normally available to the public in the fair price shops all over the country.
6. The price payable for levy sugar is fixed by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Act. Such levy sugar price is fixed year to year.
7. Though the sugar year commences from October and the levy sugar price ought to be notified in October, the practice which was being followed was that the previous year's price was temporarily notified as a levy sugar price in October and the final price was thereafter notified in January, and the balance was reimbursed by the government to the sugar mills. Thus, for the year 1993-94, the old price of 1992-93 was temporarily notified in October 1993 and the final price was notified in January 1994. On 18.03.1994 the Central Government informed the sugar factories that the difference between the temporarily notified price and the final price would be reimbursed to the sugar mills. This decision was communicated to the Food Corporation of India on 05.03.1994 and pursuant to that the sugar mills lodged their claims for the balance.
8. As regards sugar supplied to the Food Corporation of India, the practice was that the sugar mills submitted their bills directly to the FCI. However, for supply of sugar to other bodies in pursuance of the direction of the Central Government, the sugar mills filed their claims before the Central Government and the Central Government, after scrutiny and verification of these bills, directed the FCI to make the payments. Since some of these payments were not made the sugar mills filed these writ petitions.
9. The version of the FCI is that there was wet and short supply of sugar by the sugar mills, and the amount over paid is liable to be adjusted against the amount payable subsequently to the sugar mills. It may be noted that these disputed amounts relate to almost a period of 15 years before the deduction in the subsequent bills. The FCI had claimed reimbursement from the railways but the railways refused to grant it.
10. In para 2 of the writ petition, the petitioner alleged that it has a sugar factory called Mawana Sugar Works situated in Mawana, District Meerut, Uttar Pradesh. Since sugar is an essential commodity the Central Government has made the Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order, 1979. Clause 2 of the Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order gives the Central Government power to issue orders directing the producer of sugar to supply levy sugar to State Governments or organisations or nominees specified in the orders at a price not exceeding the price determined by the Central Government under Section 3(3)(c) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
11. In para 7 of the writ petition it is stated that the Central Government by letter dated 18.3.1994 informed all the sugar factories that it had been decided to compensate the sugar mills for 1993-94 season in respect of the balance between the provisional price notified in October,1993 and the finally notified price which was notified on 17.1.1994. The sugar mills were advised to submit their claims for reimbursement of differential price to the Food Corporation of India (FCI) for sugar supplied to the FCI. In respect of sugar supplied to other allottees, States/Union Territories the claim was to be submitted to the Central Government in the Directorate of Sugar, Ministry of Food which would after scrutinising the claim forward it to the FCI for payment. A true copy of the Circular letter dated 18.3.1994 is Annexure P-4 to the writ petition. This letter was followed by another circular letter dated 3.5.1994 from the Central Government to the FCI informing the FCI of the decision of the Government to reimburse the sugar mills of the differential ex-factory levy sugar price claimed immediately on their receipt. A true copy of the letter dated 3.5.1994 from the Ministry of Food to the FCI is Annexure P-5 to the writ petition.
12. For the season 1993-94 the petitioner factory had received allotment orders for supplying sugar to FCI and UPPCF. True copies of the allotment orders are Annexure P-6 to the writ petition. The payment for the sales of sugar was to be made by the allottee. Thus, for sugar supplied to UPPCF the payment was to be made by UPPCF.
13. In accordance with the directions of the Central Government the petitioner factory made its claims to the FCI in the prescribed format for the sugar supplied by it to the FCI. The claim included a certificate from the Quality Inspector of the FCI that 1270 tonnes of sugar had been dispatched out of 1993-94's production up to 16.1.1994. A copy of the claim dated 26.4.1994 is Annexure P-7 to the writ petition.
14. Similarly a claim was lodged with the Directorate of Sugar, Ministry of Food for Rs. 17,03,643.07 for the sugar supplied up to 16.1.1994 to UPPCF. A copy of the claim dated 19.5.1994 is Annexure P-8 to the writ petition.
15. Thereafter the Central Government by its letter dated 8.8.1994 addressed to the FCI sanctioned the claim of the petitioner in respect of the sugar supplied to UPPCF and directed the FCI to make the payment to the petitioner. A true copy of the letter dated 8.8.1994 is Annexure P-9 to the writ petition. The petitioner then wrote to the FCI referring to the Sugar Directorate's letter dated 8.8.1994 vide Annexure P-10 to the writ petition. The petitioner also sent a telegram dated 5.8.1994 requesting the FCI to expedite the payment vide Annexure P-11 to the writ petition.
16. The petitioner then made repeated requests to the FCI, but to no avail. Ultimately the petitioner received a letter dated 28.10.1994 from the FCI, Lucknow regarding payment of its claim of Rs. 17.03 lakhs which had been sanctioned by the Central Government and that letter stated that shortages received during the last two years have to be realised from pending claims of sugar mills and that it is only after a clear no dues certificate was produced by the factory that payment of the amount would be made. A copy of the letter dated 28.10.1994 from the FCI is Annexure P-14 to the writ petition. It is alleged that the demand for a no dues certificate was unjustified since the FCI was only an agent and a go between and there was no question of the FCI requiring a no dues certificate. Since the claim had already been scrutinised by the Central Government and orders had been made to the FCI to make the payment, the demand for a no dues certificate was clearly illegal.
17. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 16.11.1994 to the FCI, New Delhi bringing to its notice that the claim of the petitioner was withheld on account of alleged shortages in the last two years. It was alleged that there was no question of any shortage since the dispatches were effected by rail against clear railway receipts (RRs). It was requested that the payment may be made at an early date vide Annexure P-15 to the writ petition.
18. The FCI, Hapur wrote a letter dated 28.12.1994 to the Deputy Manager (Finance) in the FCI, Lucknow intimating the position of bank guarantees and the outstanding dues of the sugar factories towards shortages/wet condition sugar in transit by rail. A copy of the letter dated 28.12.1994 is Annexure P-16 to the writ petition.
19. It is alleged that the issue regarding the bank guarantee has nothing to do with the present case and it has only been made to create confusion. The bank guarantees referred to had been given by the petitioner factory in relation to petitions filed in the High Court and Supreme Court regarding fixation of levy sugar price for various years from 1974-75 to 1982-83. By interim orders the Courts had permitted charging of a higher levy sugar price subject to giving of bank guarantees. The matter was decided on 22.9.1993 by the Supreme Court and has now nothing to do with the present case.
20. The FCI, Hapur wrote another letter dated 28.12.1994 to the Senior Regional Manager, FCI Lucknow giving details of alleged shortages/wet condition bags received from various sugar factories including the petitioner sugar factory, vide Annexure P-17 to the writ petition.
21. It is alleged in para 20 of the petition that as per the allotment order and the price fixation order the price was fixed for delivery at the rail head and it was the duty of the petitioner to supply the sugar at the rail head and obtain a clear RR for the same, which the petitioner had done. Any shortage/damage to the sugar thereafter could not be the responsibility of the petitioner and was the liability of the FCI/consignee to be settled with the railways.
22. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 17.1.1995 to the District Manager, FCI, Hapur regarding the alleged shortage in sugar bags dispatched by rail. It was pointed out that the dispatches were made against clear RRs and there was no question of any deduction from the amount that was payable to the petitioner vide Annexure P-18 to the writ petition. Similarly a letter dated 15.3.1995 was written by the petitioner to the Senior Regional Manager, FCI, Lucknow, vide Annexure P-19 to the writ petition. It was mentioned that no complaints were ever made by UPPCF to the FCI with respect to shortages/wet sugar and in fact the claim raised by the petitioner to the Directorate of Sugar had been cleared by them after referring to UPPCF and the FCI was directed to make the payment of the differential amount. It is alleged that this shows that there were no shortages/wet condition sugar.
23. In para 22 of the petition it is stated that the UPPCF did raise some claims of insignificant amount from the petitioner factory regarding some shortage/wet condition sugar. These claims were for a few thousand rupees and were made directly to the petitioner factory which denied any liability in the matter. These claims would also show that the shortages alleged by the FCI were non-existent and a figment of their imagination. Copies of the claims by UPPCF and the replies of the petitioner to UPPCF are Annexure P-20 to the writ petition. When the respondents refused to make the payment the petitioner sent a legal notice vide Annexure P-21 to the writ petition. No reply was sent by the FCI to the legal notice.
24. It is not necessary to go into the other allegations in the writ petition as broad facts have been indicated above.
25. A counter affidavit, as amended, has been filed. We have perused the same.
26. In para 1 of the paradise reply in the counter affidavit it is stated that the respondents were well within their rights to make deductions against short supply or supply of wet/damaged sugar. It is alleged that the losses sustained on account of partial shortages and wet/sweated sugar noticed in the consignments dispatched by the petitioner by rail have been recovered in a legitimate manner.
27. In para 10 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the certificate of a quantity of 1278 MT of levy sugar dispatched to FCI was a mere statement based on dispatch documents provided by the petitioner mill to the FCI and not a certificate of actual receipt. Sugar was dispatched by rail to the consignee's destinations where shortages were detected. The Railway has also certified such shortages.
28. In para 13 of the counter affidavit it is alleged that the claim of the petitioner on account of differential price of levy sugar for 1993-94 was received, but the payment was not released as shortages and defects were discovered.
29. In para 17 of the counter affidavit it is stated that it was obligatory on the part of the sugar mill to dispatch the allotted quantity of sugar. The clear railway receipts do not absolve the petitioner from its responsibility in case of shortages or defects.
30. The Asstt Manager, FCI, Hapur, in his letter dated 16.8.1996 addressed to the Dy. Manager (Finance), FCI, Regional office, Lucknow, a copy of which is Annexure R-4 to the writ petition, has referred to the alleged transit shortage and wet/sweated bags found at various destinations. It is denied that the FCI is trying some device to delay payments to the petitioner.
31. It may be mentioned that during the pendency of the writ petition an affidavit was filed by one Shri Dev Dutt, District Manager, FCI, District Office, Hapur, annexing various documents to substantiate the plea of the FCI that the petitioner was informed in writing about the short supplies as well as wet/sweated supply of levy sugar to the FCI. Along with that affidavit a large number of documents have been annexed stating that shortage as well as defects were noted in the levy sugar supplied in the railway wagons at the time of unloading the sugar at the destination.
32. In view of the factual allegations of short supply and/or supply of defective sugar to the FCI at the destination, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly held in this connection that it is appropriate that the petitioner may file a civil suit as there were disputed questions of fact as to whether the levy sugar supplied was in short supply and/or in wet/damaged condition.
33. In our opinion, the learned single Judge rightly relegated the petitioner to the remedy of filing a civil suit in respect of his claim regarding the supply of levy sugar to the FCI.
34. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that as regards levy sugar supplied to the FCI, the sugar mill had loaded the correct quantity and quality of sugar in the railway wagons in the presence of the quality inspector of the FCI and had thereafter obtained clear railway receipts from the Railways certifying the exact quantity loaded. Hence any shortages or damages which occur during transit cannot be attributed to the petitioner sugar mill and thereforee no deductions can be made on this account. He submitted that these facts have not been disputed by the respondents and the factual position is clarified by an Office Order No. 1(1-3) 72. Sug dated 17.11.1972 of the FCI containing guidelines to be followed by its officials while dealing with supply of levy sugar.
35. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that ownership in the goods passed to the FCI by virtue of Section 23 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 which states:-
23. Sale of unascertained goods and appropriation.- (1) Where there is a contract for sale of unascertained or future goods by description and in a deliverable state are unconditionally appropriated to the contract, either by the seller with the assent of the buyer or by the buyer with the assent of the seller, the property in the goods thereupon passes to the buyer. Such assent may be expressed or implied, and may be given either before or after the appropriation is made.
(2) Delivery to carrier.- Where, in pursuance of the contract, the seller delivers the goods to the buyer or to a carrier or other bailee (whether named by the buyer or not) for the purpose of transmission to the buyer, and does not reserve the right of disposal, he is deemed to have unconditionally appropriated the goods to the contract.
36.The learned counsel for the writ petitioner has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Marwar Tent Factory v. Union of India : AIR1990SC1753 wherein it was stated that the property in the consignment sent F.O.R the seller's station passes to the buyer when the goods were loaded into railway wagons at the consumer's station. It was further held that the seller is not responsible for subsequent loss of goods in transit and is entitled to full payment of the agreed price without any deduction.
37. In view of the above position, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner submitted that the FCI illegally made deductions in its subsequent bills in respect of the alleged shortages/ wet/ sweated/ damaged levy sugar.
38. In our opinion, the basic flaw in the submission of the counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, Shri Jayant Bhushan, is that he has overlooked the legal position that writ is a discretionary remedy, vide Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (2003) 6 SCC 20. It must be clearly understood that to obtain a writ not only the petitioner has to show that the law is in his favor, but he has also to show that equity is in favor. Unless both law and equity are in his favor a writ will not be issued. In this case the petitioner may at best has been able to show that so far as supply to F.C.I is concerned law is in his favor in view of the various provisions in the Sale of Goods Act and as indicated by the Supreme Court in Marwar Tent Factory's case (supra).
39. However, the petitioner has not been able to prove that equity is also in his favor. The appellants have filed a large number of documents along with the affidavit of Shri Dev Dutt in which it is stated that there was shortage in the supplies made to the FCI and also there was wet/sweated supply of levy sugar. If these allegations of the appellants are correct, then obviously there is no equity in the petitioner's favor. Whether in fact there was short supply and/or supply of wet/sweated sugar is a matter to be enquired into as held by the learned single Judge and we fully agree with the view he has taken. Since there is a factual controversy, writ jurisdiction is not the appropriate forum for resolving the matter. Hence, we agree with the learned single Judge that the writ petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy of a civil suit in respect of his claim for the differential amount of levy sugar supplied to the FCI.
40. However, the position is different regarding sugar supplied to non-F.C.I parties. It may be noted that the letter of the Government of India, Ministry of Food, Directorate of Sugar, bearing No. 2-2/89(38)/SCR dated 8.8.1994 states:-
To
Manager(Sugar),
Food Corporation of India,
16-20, Barakhamba Lane,
New Delhi-110001.
Subject: Reimbursement of differential ex-factory price for levy sugar delivered out of 1993-94 season's production to the direct allottee States/Union Territories up to 16.1.1994.
Sir,
I am directed to forward under mentioned claim on the above account, duly scrutinized and verified for payment at your end under intimation to this Directorate. The Pre-receipts duly signed and stamped by the factory are enclosed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------Name & Code No./ State to Qty. in AmountAddress of the Short Name which (Tonnes) Rs/Psowner/Factory pertain---------------------------------------------------------------------M/s Mawana 02902 U.P 3300.0 17,03,643.70Sugar Works, MAWANADistt Meerut (U.P)---------------------------------------------------------------------(Rupees Seventeen lacs three thousand six hundred forty three and paise seventy only)
Encl: Pre-receipt duly signed & stamped.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Rachna Chopra)
DY. DIRECTOR (COST)
Copy to:
1. Factory concerned for information.
2. Indian Sugar Mills Association, New Delhi-110019.
3. National Federation of Co-op Sugar Factories Ltd, New
Delhi- 110 019.
Sd/-
(Rachna Chopra)
DY. DIRECTOR (COST)
41.Similar is the letter dated 14.9.1995, which is at page 146 of the paper book of LPA Nos. 331-32/2005.
42.A perusal of the said letter shows that the Central Government not only scrutinized the bills sent to the non-FCI parties, but also verified the same.
43. In our opinion, once the Central Government has verified the bills there is no question of any further verification. If further verification was required from the FCI, then the Government Circular No. 2-2/89-90/SCP dated 18.3.1994 (at pages 68 & 69 of LPA Nos. 331-332/2005 331-332/2005 ) would have required the petitioner to submit claims for reimbursement of differential ex-factory price in respect of levy sugar supplied to the non-FCI parties directly to the FCI instead of to the Central Government. The said letter states:-
Government of India, Ministry of Food, Directorate of Sugar, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi-110001.
No.: 2-2/89-90/SCP 18th March, 1994.
To
The Chief Executives of All Sugar Factories.
Subject: Reimbursement of Differential ex-factory levy price delivered out of 1992-94 season's production up to 16.1.1994.
Sir,
I am directed to say that Government had earlier notified the ex-factory prices of levy sugar for 1993-94 season vide Notification dated 22.10.1993. The prices so notified were the same as applicable for 1992-93 season. This was because the revision in ex-factory prices for 19.3.94 season was under consideration at that time. The ex-factory levy sugar prices for 1993-94 season have since been revised and re-notified vide Order No. GSR26(E)/Ess.Com/Sugar dated 17.1.1994 effective from the said date.
In view of the above, it has also been decided to compensate the sugar mills for the short recovery in the ex-factory prices for 1993-94 season in respect of the sugar delivered at the old rates up to 16.1.94 and accordingly, reimburse the difference between the two notified prices, i.e., levy price Notification dated 22.10.93 and levy price Notification dated 17.1.194, as was done for the previous seasons and clarified vide this Directorate Circular letter of even number dated 23.2.1990.
The sugar mills are, thereforee, advised to submit their claims for reimbursements of differential ex-factory levy price directly to the Food Corporation of India. In respect of sugar delivered to direct allottee States/Union Territories the claim shall be submitted to this Directorate for scrutiny. The claims duly completed in all respects shall be submitted in the same manner and in the same formats earlier prescribed in this connection, for reimbursement of differential ex-factory levy price for the last season.
In respect of levy sugar delivered in favor of Army Purchase Organisation and to the Food Processing Units, on the recommendation of Agricultural & Processed Food Products Export Development Authority, the claims shall be submitted directly to the concerned authorities, as was done in the previous years.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(A.B. NAGRARE)
CHIEF DIRECTOR
(SUGAR)
A perusal of the said circular shows that the intention of the Central Government was clearly that in so far as supplies to non-FCI parties is concerned, it is the Central Government which will make the scrutiny and verification of the bills of the petitioner.
44. Apart from the above, it is clearly averred in para 22 of WP(C) No. 2163 of 1996 (page 70 of the paper book of LPA No. 1131/2004) that the Directorate of Sugar, Central Government had cleared payments to the sugar mills only after referring the matter to the UPPCF and the FCI was thereafter directed to make the payment of the differential amount.
45. As regards certain letters of UPPCF complaining about shortages, these were for a few thousand rupees and were made directly and in our opinion these offered no justification to the respondents to withhold payment of a huge amount of money. In our opinion, these letters have been referred to without understanding the context. In fact, the sugar had been lifted by third parties without any complaint, protest or demur of shortages or damaged sugar. This fact is also recorded by the learned single Judge in his impugned judgment.
46. It is contended by the learned Additional Solicitor General that the matter is contractual and hence no writ should be issued. In this connection, it may be mentioned that there can be two categories of contracts. The first contract is one in which both the contracting parties are private persons. In that case no writ will lie because none of the parties can be said to be State under Article 12 of the Constitution and hence Article 14 has no application.
47. The other category of cases is where one of the contracting parties is the State or an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution. In such a kind of contract Article 14 will immediately apply. This is because while private parties are free to enter into any contract they wish to, the State is not so free and has to abide by Article 14 and other provisions of the Constitution. This has been clearly laid down in Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U.P and Ors. : AIR1991SC537 . Similar view was followed by the Supreme Court in ABL International Ltd. v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation Ltd. : (2004)3SCC553 .
48. We, thereforee, uphold the judgment of the learned single Judge, but with the further direction that the amounts payable under this judgment and the judgment of the learned single Judge must be paid to the writ petitioner with interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum from the date when the amounts were payable to the date of payment and such payments must be made within two months from today.
49. We make it clear that we are awarding interest because interest is the normal accretion on capital.
50. There is often a misconception about interest. Some people think that interest is a penalty or punishment, but that is not at all true. As stated above, interest is the normal accretion on capital and is not a penalty or punishment at all.
51. Interest is compensatory in character and can be recovered for withholding the payment of any amount when it is due and payable. It is different from penalty and tantamounts to compensation as the person entitled for recovery has been deprived of the right to use the said amount.
52. In Associated Cement Co. Ltd v. Commercial Tax Officer, Kota, : [1982]1SCR563 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:-
Interest is ordinarily claimed from an assessed who has withheld payment of any tax payable by him and it is always calculated the prescribed rate on the basis of the actual amount of tax withheld and the extent of delay in paying it. It may not be wrong to say that such interest is compensatory in character and not penal.
53. A similar view has been reiterated in Pratibha Processors v. Union of India : 1996(88)ELT12(SC) .
54. In Abati Bezbaruah v. Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India : [2003]1SCR1229 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that interest is a compensation for forbearance from detention of money and that interest being awarded to a party only for being kept out of the money which ought to have been paid to him.
55. Interest means, inter alia, a compensation paid by the borrower to the lender for deprivation of the use of his money as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in Consolidated Coffee Ltd v. Agricultural Income-tax Officer, Madikeri (2001) 1 SCC 278 and Central Bank of India v. Ravindera, : AIR2001SC3095 .
56. In Secretary, Irrigation Department, Government of Orissa v. G.C. Roy, : [1991]3SCR417 , the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that a person deprived of use of money to which he is legitimately entitled as of right, to be compensated for the deprivation, call it by any name. It may be called interest, compensation or damages.
57. Interest may also be awarded on equitable grounds. (vide Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd v. Ruttanji Ramji ; Satinder Singh v. Umrao Singh, : [1961]3SCR676 ; Laxmichand v. Indore Improvement Trust, : [1975]3SCR686 ; United India Insurance v. Ajmer Singh Cotton and General Mills, : AIR1999SC3027 ; and Sovintorg (India) Ltd v. State Bank of India, : AIR1999SC2963 )
58. Money doubles every seven years or so (in view of the interest). For instance, if A had to pay B a sum of Rs. 100 in the year 1991, but he does not pay it, then the result will be that he will keep pocketing the interest. Rs. 100 in the year 1991 becomes Rs. 200 in the year 1998 and it becomes Rs. 400 in the year 2005. If A had to pay Rs. 100 to B in the year 1991, but he does not pay it then and instead offers to pay it only in the year 2005, the result is that he has pocketed Rs. 300 as interest which has accrued on the principal amount. This is clearly unfair to B. Had A paid Rs. 100 in the year 1991, B would have invested it somewhere and earned interest thereon. Instead, A has earned interest thereon. Hence, he must not only pay back the principal amount of Rs. 100, but also interest thereon.
59. Hence, whenever an amount is directed to be paid by the Court, the Court should ordinarily also direct interest from the time when it was payable, unless the statute provides otherwise. If such a direction is not given by the Court, the result can well be that A pays to B the principal sum long after it was legally due and he pockets the interest in the meantime.
60. Similar view has been taken by the Madras High Court in The Collector, Dharmapuri District, Dharmapuri v. N. Murugan : (2005)1MLJ405 following the decision of the Supreme Court in South Eastern Coal Fields Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh J.T (2003) (Supp.2) S.C 332.
61. It may be further mentioned that the FCI did not implement the order of the learned single Judge within time and filed the appeal belatedly. The appeal was listed for hearing in Court after more than 4 months of the passing of the impugned judgment and only after initiation of contempt proceedings by the respondent sugar mill. Even thereafter no interim stay of the impugned judgment was granted. However, the appellant FCI was permitted vide order dated 15.4.2005 in LPA No. 330-31/2005 to deposit the amount in the registry of this Court. The amount so deposited had been calculated by the FCI itself for deductions made from payments for sugar supplied to third parties and was much less than what was required to be paid under the impugned order. The respondent sugar mill has, thereforee, not been able to get the benefit of the judgment in its favor since the money had remained deposited in the registry of this Court.
62. In view of the above, we direct the amount of Rs. 52,99,102/- lying in the registry be released with interest accrued thereon in favor of the respondent sugar mill which is now called 'Mawana Sugar Ltd' without prejudice to the rights and contentions to calculate the correct amount required to be paid in respect of levy sugar supplied to the FCI.
63. With the above observations, these appeals are disposed of.