AGRICULTURE MARKET COMMITTEE, RAJAM AND ANR. versus RAJAM JUTE AND OIL MILLERS ASSOCIATION, RAJAM

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 320 · Decided: 25-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
AGRICULTURE MARKET COMMITTEE. RAJAM AND ANR. 
B 
v. 
RAJAM JUTE AND OIL MILLERS ASSOCIATION, RAJAM 
FEBRUARY 25, 2003 
[M.B. SHAH AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 
1966-Sections 12 and 15-Market fee or cess-Entitlement of Market 
C Committee to levy-Market Committee in the process of providing facilities in 
the notified market area-Suit for injunction from levy on the ground that all 
the facilities were not provided-During pendency of suit facilities completed 
and fee paid by Association-Suit decreed-On appeal held that Market 
Committee entitled to levy fee-High Court held that committee not entitled 
since facilities were not provided-On appeal held: While quid pro quo 
D between levy of fee and facilities provided in the notified market area is 
necessary, it cannot be in exact proportion to the fee levied-Existence of all 
the required services before levy of fee is not necessary-However in the facts 
of the case challenge to levy of market fee has no fo,ce. 
Plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that 
E defendant-appellant had no right to levy, demand and collect any market 
fee from the members of the plaintiff-association because the market 
committee had failed to provide any facilities in the market area. The case 
of the defendant-market committee was that market committee was in its 
nascent stage and it had already started various services in the market 
F area and the process for providing further services were already on. 
Plaintiff did not lead any evidence regarding availability of facilities and 
amenities. Defendant Committee led oral evidence on this point. 
Trial Court held that the facilities and amenities available were not 
sufficient so as to hold that the facilities and amenities had been made 
G available by the Market Committee and hence decreed the suit. District 
Judge dismissed the suit holding that the facilities had been made 
available; and that the Committee was discharging its functions and hence 
it was entitled to levy market fee. On appeal High Court upheld the 
decision of Trial Court. Hence the present appeal. Respondent-Association 
admitted that during pendency of the suit, it had started paying market 
H 
320 
L 
-; 
\ 
AGRICULTURE MKT. C0~1T\11TTEE, RAJ AM 1·. RAJ AM JUTE AND OJL MILLERS AS SON 
321 
fee, after all the facilities were provided by the Committee. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. While quid pro quo between levy of fee and facilities 
provided in the notified market area is necessary, exactitude in such 
matters is neither required nor possible. The extent of service/amenities B 
cannot have correlation with th• fee levied. Secondly, the market 
committees can continue their efforts for providing the amenities 
depending on availability of funds with them. It is not that all the required 
services must be in place before a fee can be levied. (333-A-Bl 
Sreenivasa General Traders and Ors. v. State of Andhra Praddh and C 
Ors., (1983] 4 SCC 353, relied on. 
2.1. In the instant case, the levy of market fee by the Market 
Committee was challenged only on the ground that no basic amenities or 
services were provided in the notified market area and therefore the D 
Market Committee had no right to levy, demand and collect the market 
fee. From the evidence on record it is evident that the Market Committee 
had made provision for certain services and' facilities in the notified market 
area and efforts were being made for extending the services. The Market 
Committee had recently come into existence and completion of all the 
intended services and facilities takes time. Whether particular services and E 
amenities are available at a given place and the extent thereof are questions 
of fact which require to be proved or demolished on the basis of evidence 
to be led by the parties concerned. Sine~ the plaintiff has not led any 
evidence whether oral or documentary ~n support of its case, the Court is 
left with no option but to accept the evidence of defendant which shows 
that some services and facilities in the notified market area were already 
available while arrangements were being made for various other facilities 
F 
and services. The foundation for the case set up by the plaintiff is not 
available on record. The law is well settled that though quid pro quo is 
required in relation to a fee which is charged and collected by a market 
committee, the quid pro quo can

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