The Supreme Court Thursday told the sugar mills' owners to pay the remaining amount to the growers in five weeks; otherwise, stern action will be taken against them.
The owners of the sugar mills from Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Sindh were present in the courtroom. The growers who did not get full payment of their sugarcane or were not paid according the rate fixed by the Punjab and Sindh governments attended the hearing.
A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, and comprising Justice Umar Atta Bandial and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah heard a suo motu case regarding sugarcane price.
The owners from Sindh informed that the rate was fixed at Rs 180 per 40 kg but the Sindh High Court had ruled that the sugarcane be purchased at Rs 160 per 40kg.
The court had directed the owners that proof of payment with the affidavits must be filed, adding the payment should be made through cheques or pay orders. The Chief Justice warned if the undertaking given to the court later proved incorrect then criminal action would be taken against them. "If there is misstatement then we will proceed accordingly," said the CJP.
The growers complained that though the price was fixed at Rs 180 per 40kg but the mills owners purchased sugarcane from them at Rs 120 per 40kg. Justice Umar then told the owners: "Don't tell lie with the court otherwise we will punish you."
The Chief Justice inquired from JDW Sugar Mills owner Jehangir Tareen, "You had given undertaking that you will purchase all sugarcane from South Punjab but you still have not made full payment to the growers." The Chief Justice was pleased to know that the owners have made payment 70 to 90 percent. He told them that the mills owners are the assets of the country as due to their investment people get job. "This is the corporate social responsibility."
The court separated the case of Patoki Sugar Mills as its owner informed the court that he could not pay outstanding amount in five weeks as he was facing losses. Brothers Sugar Mills owners did not turn up before the court.
Comments
Comments are closed.