The Bombay High Court struck down a Government Resolution (GR) issued by the Maharashtra government on February 21, 2022. This resolution attempted to delay and reduce the Fair and Remunerative Price (FRP) payable to sugarcane farmers, directly contradicting the Sugar Control Order (SCO) of 1966 set by the Central Government. The decision marks a significant victory for farmers who rely on timely payments for their livelihood.
A division bench comprising Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna emphasized the crucial role of agriculture in India's economy. The court recognized that a vast majority of the population depends on farming, particularly sugarcane cultivation, which supports both farmers and the sugar industry.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Questions State on Delay in Response to PIL on Denotified Tribes
"The agriculturists producing sugarcane play a significant role in their contribution to the sugar industries scattered across the country. The Central Government has rightfully included sugarcane under the Essential Commodities Act to ensure farmers receive a fair price," the court stated.
Violation of Central Government Regulations
The High Court found that the Maharashtra government’s GR was in direct conflict with the SCO, which mandates that sugarcane farmers must receive their FRP within 14 days of supply to sugar mills. This central directive aims to prevent financial distress among farmers, ensuring they are not left waiting until the end of the crushing season for payment.
"Agriculturists should not suffer due to delayed payments. The intention of the Central Government is to provide immediate payment of FRP within 14 days," the judges observed.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Penalty for Unauthorized Audio Recording of Court Proceedings
The bench highlighted that any deviation from this rule would adversely impact farmers' livelihoods, potentially forcing them into debt. The judgment reinforced that the timely payment of FRP is not just a financial necessity but a legal obligation.
Financial Burden on Farmers Due to GR
The petitioners, including former MP and farmer leader Raju Shetti, argued that the GR allowed sugar mills to deduct transportation and harvesting costs from the initial payment, thereby reducing the amount received by farmers. Additionally, the final FRP was to be determined only at the end of the sugar season, further delaying payments.
"The denial of immediate FRP payments creates a regime of uncertainty, affecting both the financial planning of farmers and their ability to sustain agricultural activities," the court noted.
Considering the violations and financial hardships posed by the GR, the Bombay High Court quashed the resolution, restoring the original mandate of the SCO.
Appearance:
Advocate Yogesh Pande appeared for the Farmers.
Senior Advocates Anil Anturkar and Arshad Shaikh along with Advocates Tanaji Mhatugade, Ranjit Agashe, Namrata Agashe, Rajendra Jain, Vinsha Acharya, Pranil Lahigade, Aniket Pardeshi, Priyanka Ashok Deshpande and Manjiri Parasnis represented Sugar Factories.
Advocates Dhirendra Pratap Singh, Parag Vyas, DA Dubey, AA Ansari, Gaurang Jhaveri and Ashok Varma represented the Union of India.
Advocate General Dr. Birendra Saraf along with Government Pleader Neha Bhide, "B" Panel Counsel Vaibhav Charulwar and Assistant Government Pleader YD Patil represented the State.
Case Title: Raju Shetty vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 5736 of 2022)
