AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE versus BIOTOR INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2013] 16 S.C.R. 969 · Decided: 29-11-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] _16 S.C.R. 969 
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE 
v. 
BIOTOR INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 4860 of 2009) 
NOVEMBER 29, 2013 
[G.5. SINGHVI AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] 
Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 - ss.28A 
and 59 - Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 
A 
B 
-
r. 48(2) -
Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets C 
(Amendment) Act, 2007 - Entitlement to levy market fee on 
the respondent-Company for purchase of castor seeds - Held: 
On facts, demand for market fee by the APMC for castor 
seeds was justified since the castor seeds were bought in the 
market area and not brought into the market area - Order of D 
the Division Bench of the High Court in LPA setting aside the 
order of the single Judge and affirming the order of the 
Revisional Authority, without examining the correctness of 
r.48(2) and applying the Division Bench Judgment rendered 
in another LPA in connected matters, without considering the E 
factual matrix, is liable to be set aside - Matter remanded to 
High Court to place the matter before the Single Judge to 
examine the validity of r.48(2), as questioned with reference 
to s. 28A of the amended provision of Act No. 17 of 2007 and 
the impugned order of the Revisional Authority - Appellant F 
may also approach the .State Government to amend the 
Rules by deleting r.48(2) - Interim order of the single Judge 
directing deposit of 50% of the demanded amount towards 
the market fee, restored - Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 
14, 19, 21 and 226. 
The appellant-APMC filed Special Civil Application 
under Articles 14, 19, 21 and 226 of the Constitution 
before the High Court, seeking relief for the issue of a writ 
of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or 
G 
969 
H 
970 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 16 S.C.R. 
A direction, to set aside order passed in Revision 
Application by respondent No.2-the State (Revisional 
Authority) and further seeking declaratory relief to 
declare that the APMC is entitled to levy market fee on the 
respondent-Company for purchase of castor seeds as 
B per the demand notices given to the respondent-
Company. Further, the appellant-APMC sought for 
declaratory relief to declare Rule 48(2) of the Gujarat 
Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1965 as ultra vires 
of Sections 28A and 59 of the Gujarat Agricultural 
c Produce Markets Act, 1963. 
The single Judge of the High Court passed interim 
order issuing Rule to examine the correctness of Rule 
48(2) in view of the amendment to the Act incorporating 
Section 2(a) to Section 28 of the Act and also granted 
D interim relief directing respondent-Company to deposit 
50% of the demanded amount towards the market fee. 
The correctness of this interim order was challenged 
by the respondent-Company by filing LPA. The Division 
E Bench dismissed the Special Civil Application holding 
that the same lacks merit and also vacated interim relief 
granted by the single Judge of High Court. Aggrieved, 
the APMC filed the instant appeal. 
F 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The demand for the market fee made by the 
APMC for castor seeds is justified as per the reasoning 
given by this Court in its judgment in the connected Civil 
Appeal No. 3130 of 2008, that the castor seeds were 
G bought in the market area and not brought into the market 
area. The order of the Division Bench of the High Court 
in LPA setting aside the order of the single Judge in 
Special Civil Application and affirming the order of the 
Revisional Authority, without examining the correctness 
H of Rule 48(2) of the Rules and applying the Division 
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE v. 971 
BIOTOR INDUSTRIES LTD. 
Bench Judgment rendered in another LPA in connected 
A 
matters without considering the factual matrix and 
therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, 
the same is set aside and the matter is remanded to the 
High Court to place the matter before the roster of single 
Judge to examine the validity of Rule 48(2) ot the Rules, 
B 
as questioned with reference to. Section 28A of the 
amended provision of Act No. 17 of 2007 and the 
impugned order of the Revisional Authority. The 
appellant may also approach the State Government to 
amend the Rules by deleting Rule 48(2) of the Rules. It is c 
open for the appellant to either press the Special Civil 
Application to be decided on merits with regard to the 
Validity of Rule 48(2) and also examine the impugned 
order of levyin

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.