Legislative Intention:

U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953/ U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules, 1954-Sections 18 and 28/Rule 49-Sugar factories to pay society commission to cooperative cane societies towards administrative expenses-Amendment of rule 49 providing society commission-Old rule 49 substituted by new rule 49-Substituted new rule operative for fixed period-Effect of old rule when substituted rule ceases to be operative-Held, old rule does not revive, since legislative intention is to repeal the old rule and substitute it with new one.

Under Section 18 of the U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1953, appellants-sugarcane factories are required to pay a commission as society commission to the respondents-cooperative cane societies and the rate of commission is to be determined and prescribed by the State Government by the statutory rules. State Government amended rule 49 and revised the society commission and fixed at 5% of the minimum statutory cane price fixed by the Central Government. Subsequently, it substituted rule 49 by which society commission was at the rate of 2.69% of the minimum statutory price of sugarcane. Substituted rule remained operative for the period from 1.10.91 to 30.9.92. Thereafter, State Cane Commissioner ordered that after 30.9.92 commission shall be charged at the rate of 5% since the substituted rule became inoperative after 30.9.92 and old rule has revived. Aggrieved, appellant filed a petition challenging the order. High Court dismissed the petition holding that on application of Section 6-C of U.P. General Clauses Act, the repealed or deleted rule 49 revived after substituted rule 49 ceased to be operative. Hence the present appeal and the connected writ petition.

Appellant contended that after the statutory rule 49 having been deleted or repealed and substituted by a new rule 49, the old rule 49 does not revive even after the substituted rule ceased to be operative and also that High Court was not legally justified in applying Section 6-C of the Act.

Respondents contended that since the substituted rule in pith and substance has been rendered non-existent, the old rule would revive.