Kanoria sugar mill owner arrested under EC Act. | |
| The UP government has cracked the whip on private sugar mills that have refused to pay the price fixed by the Allahabad High Court. |
| |
| K S Kanoria, the owner of the Kanoria sugar mills at Kaptanganj in Kushinagar district, was arreasted today following an FIR filed under the Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities (EC) Act. |
| |
| Another FIR has been lodged against Naresh Chandra Agarwal, the vice-president of the Bajaj group sugar mill at Barkhera in Pilibhit district, and other offcials in the management under Section 3/7 of the EC Act and Section 418 (breach of contract) 420 and 421 of the Indian Penal Code. |
| |
| According to a senior cane department official, punitive action was likely to be taken against many other private mills which were refusing to pay the price of Rs 110 a quintal fixed for sugarcane for the current 2007-08 season. |
| |
| The official said that Kanoria sugar mills had neither paid the price fixed by the high court nor was ready to give commitment to the farmers on the price based on the final order of the high court. Criminal proceedings were initiated against the mill after the management refused to respond to the notice issued by the Cane Commission. |
| |
| In UP, sugar mills are issued licenses by the Cane Commissioner under the UP Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories Licensing Order 1966. If the mills defy the orders of the licensing authority then they are liable to be prosecuted under the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act. |
| |
| UP's Cane Commissioner Kamran Rizvi on January 2 had issued notices to several private mills which were refusing to pay the price of Rs 110 per quintal, fixed by the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court vide an interim order on November 15. |
| |
| The notice was issued under the provisions of the UP Sugar Cane Regulation of supply and Purchase Act 1953 and UP Vacuum Pan Sugar Factories Licensing Order 1966. |
| |
| The state government had, earlier, maintained the State Advisory Price (SAP) of 2006-07 for the current crushing season at Rs 125 a quintal for the common variety and Rs 130 a quintal for the early crop. |
| |
| The UP Sugar Mills Association and few other private sugar mills had challenged the SAP at the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad High Court. |
| |
| The Lucknow bench of the high court in an interim order on November 15 last year had directed private sugar mills to pay sugar cane farmers at the rate of Rs 110 a quintal. The case is listed for hearing here on January 7. |
| |
| The Allahabad High Court had also issued a notice to the state government asking it to explain the SAP which was far higher then the SMP announced by the Centre. |
| |
| The sugar mills have argued that the SAP had no economic, financial or scientific basis, and maintained that the Centre'd SMP was based on scientific study by the Agriculture Price |
| |
| Commission, which determines the support price of all agricultural commodities covered by the Minimum Support Price. |
| |
|
| |
