As per case facts, appeals contested a Bombay High Court Full Bench ruling that non-member cane growers, compelled to supply cane under reservation orders, deserved market price over government-fixed rates. ... The High Court deemed specific government-fixed prices too low, also citing no hearing for non-members and inadequate grievance redressal in the State Order. The question arose whether the State Order's sugarcane pricing and supply mechanism, forcing non-members to sell to designated factories at fixed prices, was constitutionally valid and legally sustainable. Finally, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's market price directions. It upheld the existing price fixation system, integrating Central minimum prices and State Advised Prices, as adequately protecting grower interests and aiming for an optimum price. The Court affirmed the zoning order's validity for stable sugar production and equitable distribution. While suggesting rationalization for noted disparities, it found the overall system neither arbitrary nor constitutionally invalid. It advised the State to amend the zoning order for grower protection and appoint an expert committee to rationalize pricing.