Authority: High Court at Calcutta

Order Date: 12/06/2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Indian Jute Mills Association (Petitioner 1) and its secretary (Petitioner 2) vs. Union of India (Respondent 1) and the Jute Commissioner (Respondent 2).
  • The writ petition (WPA 29892 of 2025) challenges the non‑issuance of price notifications for B‑Twill jute bags for October and November 2025, alleging deviation from the pricing formula approved by the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) and communicated by the Ministry of Textiles on 17 Oct 2025.
  • Historical context: Similar petitions were filed in 2016 (W.P. No. 369(W) & 9409(W) of 2016) leading to a 2016 settlement directing the Jute Commissioner to use a three‑month moving average of raw jute prices (quotations of Jute Balers Association and A.M. Mair) for price fixation.
  • In March 2021, the Union issued a Tariff Commission Report prescribing the same three‑month moving‑average methodology for raw jute and jute bags.
  • The September 15 2025 notification fixed the price of both Type A and Type B jute bags at Rs 7,458.81 per 100 bags; raw jute material cost for September 2025 was Rs 85,481.90, derived from daily quotations of JBA and A.M. Mair.
  • No separate notification was issued for October and November 2025; the Production Control and Supply Orders for those months reflected the September price despite rising raw material cost.
  • A subsequent notification on 17 Dec 2025 fixed the maximum ex‑factory price for December 2025 but did not address October‑November 2025.
  • The petitioners filed a related writ (WPA 28244 of 2025); the Court on 18 Dec 2025 allowed liberty to challenge the October‑November price fixation in the present petition.
  • The petitioners contend that the CCEA formula is a binding policy, not a mere suggestion, and that the Jute Commissioner must adhere to it. They also seek reimbursement of the differential amount caused by the alleged arbitrary price fixation.
  • Respondents argue that price fixation is an executive function involving technical discretion and that the Jute Commissioner retains statutory flexibility under the Jute and Jute Textiles Control Order, 2016.
  • The Court references earlier judgments (e.g., WPA 1126 of 2022, FMA No. 1044/2022) affirming the Jute Commissioner’s duty to fix prices in line with government policy and to take action against hoarding.
  • The Court also cites the Supreme Court’s decision in Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd vs Union of India (1990) distinguishing legislative price‑fixing from administrative discretion, and emphasizes that judicial review is permissible where arbitrariness or violation of Article 14 is alleged.

Final Outcome

  • The Court holds that the CCEA pricing formula communicated on 17 Oct 2025 is binding on the Jute Commissioner.
  • The price fixation for October and November 2025 is quashed; the respondent authorities are directed to determine and notify the price of jute bags for those months strictly according to the approved formula.
  • The respondent must pay the differential amount to the petitioner’s mill—the difference between the price computed under the CCEA formula and any price already fixed or paid for October‑November 2025 supplies—with interest at 9 % per annum from the due date until actual payment.
  • The Jute Commissioner is ordered to ensure strict compliance with the CCEA formula for all future price determinations and will be responsible for any deviation and consequent losses unless the formula is lawfully modified.
  • No order as to costs; an urgent certified copy of the order shall be supplied to the parties upon compliance with formalities.

Topics: Jute Pricing, Administrative Law, Price Regulation