H.C.A. No.124 of 2022

___________________________________________________________________ Date Order with signature of Judge




1.     For order on CMA No.955/2022 (Urgent).

2.     For order on office objection a/w reply as at A.

3.     For order on CMA No.956/2022 (Exemption).

4.     For hearing of main case.

5.     For order on CMA No.957/2022 (Stay).



6th April 2022

Mr. Abdul Sattar Pirzada alongwith Mr. Mamoon N. Chaudhry, Advocate for Appellants.



1. Urgency granted.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants undertakes to comply with office objection before next date of hearing.

3. Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.

4&5. Instant High Court Appeal has been filed against judgment 21.03.2022 and decree dated 02.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No.2766 of 2021 filed by the appellants, seeking a declaration against fixation of minimum price of sugarcane @ Rs.250/- through impugned Notification bearing No.8(142)/SO (Ext)/2021-22, dated 04.11.2021 issued by the respondent No.3 under the provisions of section 16 of the Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950, for being violative of the provisions of the aforesaid Act, as according to learned counsel for the appellants, the Notification has been issued in violation of the requirement of section 16(a) & (b) of the Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950, which requires that prices of sugarcane shall be fixed as per recommendation by the Sugarcane Control Board while taking into consideration two categories; (a) the cost of production of sugarcane; and (b) the return to the grower from alternative crops and the general, trend of prices of agricultural commodities. However, according to learned counsel for the appellants, as per Minutes of the Meeting of the Cabinet it transpired that the price of sugarcane for the Year 2021-22 has been based on the verbal averments of some of the Cabinet members without ascertaining the merit trend and the factors as per section 16(a)&(b), even while ignoring the prices as recommended by the Board, whereas, no valid reasons have been given for the prices as recommended by the Board. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the prices so fixed, besides being exorbitant, are not comparable from the prices for the last three years, as well as the price as fixed by the Punjab Government for the Year 2021-22. According to learned counsel, the learned Single Judge has not taken into consideration the aforesaid factors into consideration, whereas, judgment of the learned Single Judge is based on the recommendations of some of the Cabinet members, which were extraneous and contrary to requirement of law and the procedure as provided for determination of the minimum prices of sugarcane.

Contention requires consideration. Let pre-admission notice be issued to the respondents as well as Advocate-General, Sindh, to be served through first three modes, for 25.04.2022, when objections/reply, if any, shall be filed with advance copy to learned counsel for appellants.