1. ' Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner Messrs Shahtaj Sugar Mills Limited, Mandi Bahauddin purchased sugarcane from the growers by paying them the full price of the commodity as already fixed by the relevant Government vide Notification No, SOF (Sugar)/13(25)/72 dated 4- 10-1972. On 29-2-1973, a Notification No,SOF (Sugar) 13(25)/72 was issued by the Government enhancing the price of the sugar-cane from Rs,3.35 to Rs, 4.25 per maund with retrospective effect.
2. According to the learned counsel the facts of this case would pertain to the sugarcane crushing season 1972-73. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner did pay the entire price of the commodity purchased by the Company from the local growers as fixed by the Government vide Notification dated 4-10-1972. The impugned Notification dated 19-2-1973 has been challenged by the petitioner by filing this Constitutional petition before this Court. It is contended forcefully by the learned counsel that the effect of the notification referred to above could not be retrospective in its application. He has relied upon the rule laid down in Chief Land Commissioner v. Ghulam Haider Shah etc. 1988 SCM R 715 and the Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs v. Azizud Din Industries PLD 1970 SC 439 in support of his plea. In other words the contention of the learned counsel is that the petitioner has already paid the entire price of the commodity and that he cannot be now asked to pay more price to the groweRs, Learned Law Officer was unable to distinguish the rule laid down in the above-noted authorities on the controversy. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire record, I am of the view that the petitioner did pay the price of sugar-cane to the growers in accordance with the rate already fixed by Government vide notification dated 4-10-1972. This being so the petitioner could not be asked to pay more price in view of the Notification dated 19-2-1973. The application of the said notification was made retrospective in its application. This is not possible in view of the rule laid down in the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court, referred to earlier. As mentioned above this pure question of law was not seriously disputed by the learned Law Officer. There is thus no option but to declare the impugned Notification dated 19-2-1973 having been issued without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed.