LexDIRECTOR, KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI AND ANR. versus M/S. RAM KISHAN DA YA RAM & CO.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DIRECTOR, KRISHI UTP ADAN MANDI SAMITI AND ANR.
A
v.
MIS. RAM KISHAN DA YA RAM & CO.
SEPTEMBER 19, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.)
,,,!
Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964-ss. 2,
({), 17 (iii) (3)-Market fee-On the trade of tendu leaves-Liability
to pay-Held· The liability to pay the market fee is on the trader and c
not on the purchaser-The corporation cannot be absolved from such
liability on the ground that it has not realized it from the purchaser.
State ofU.P. appointed U.P. Forest Corporation as its agent to
deal in business of 'ten du' leaves. In a litigation, challenging levy D
of market fee on the Corporation by the appellant-committee, it was
agreed between parties that the Corporation would collect market
fee from the purchasers and deposit the same with the appellant.
Corporation did not collect the sam~. Appellant issued notices
against the respondent-purchaser demanding the market fee u/s 17 E
(iii)(4) ofUttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964.
Respondent filed Writ Petition, whieh wa's allowed by High Court.
Hence the present appeals.
"'!.\
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. U.P. Forest Corporation was a trader and it could F
not have escaped its liability from payment of the market fee, only
because the appellant as also the State of U.P. Iost the Writ Petition
filed by the U .P. Forest Corporation before the High Court, which
by itself, does not entitle the appellant herein to fall back upon the G
;..
respondent for the purpose of realization of market fee.
[Paras 8 and 12] {590-C; 592-D]
2. The definition of the term 'trader' u/s 2(f) ofUttar Pradesh
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 does not envisage that all
587
H
y --
588
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 10 S.C.R.
A traders must be licensed traders for the purpose of realization of the
~
market fee. The proviso appended to clause (3) of sub-section (iii)
of Section 17 of the Act, although was enacted by Act No. 4 of 1999,
the same had been given retrospective effect and retrospective
operation. In no uncertain terms it provides that the trader would be
B bound to pay the market fee and shall not be ~bsolved from such
liability on the ground that he has not realized it from t_he purchaser.
[Para 11] [592-B-C)
c
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3732 of
2001.
From the Judgment and final Order dated 3.2.2000 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32828of1991.
WITH
C.A. No. 3079 of 2004.
,.,.
Shobha Dikshit, Sr. Adv., Pradeep Misra and Daleep Kr. Dhayani
\-
E
for the Appellants.
M. Indrani (for Abhijit Sengupta) for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA; J. Appellant is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
judgment and order dated 3.2.2000 passed by a Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
X
p No.32828/1991, whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the
respondent herein was allowed dU:ecting:
G
H
"The petition succeeds. The contention of the petitioner that it is
not liable to pay the market fee to the Market Committee on the
purchases of tendu leaves made by it from the U.P. Forest
Corporation, is accepted. The Market Committee concerned is
directed to refund the deposit of Rs. 99,310.00 against the market
fee for the year 1991-92 to the petitioner and also· to pay 12
percent per annum interest thereon in accordance with·the interim
order dated 11.11.1991 of this Court."
DIRECTOR, KRISHIUTPADANMANDI SAMITI v.
589
M/S~ RAM KISHAN DAY A RAM & CO. [SINHA, J.]
:r
2. Basic fact of the matter is not in dispute. Business in tendu leaves A
is dealt in by the Government ofU.P. It has a monopoly in respect thereof.
The State ofU.P. appointed the U.P. Forest Corporation as its agent.
Questioning the legality of levy of market fee upon the Corporation by
· the appellant herein a writ petition was filed, inter alia, on the premise
that no service having been rendered to the Corporation, the market fee B
was not leviable.
)
3. It is the admitted case of the parties that the said writ petition
>"'
was allowed by a judgment and order dated 20 .1.1983. A special leave
petition was filed thereagainst. Before this Court, the parties to the said c
SLP agreed that the U.P. Forest Corporation would collect market fee
from the purchasers and deposit the same with the appelJant. However,
the UExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.