LexM/S. AMAR NATH OM PARKASH AND ORS. ETC versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H , M/S. AMAR NATH OM PARKASH AND ORS. ETC v. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. ETC. November 29, 1984 (0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act-Excess fee collected from dealers by Market Committee u/s 23 declared invalid by Court-Sec. 23A enacted enabling market committees to retain excess collection in case of dealers who had passed on the burden of such fee to the next purchaser of such atricultura/ pro· duce-Section-Whether within legislative competence-Whether State Legislature competent to validate levy declared by Court as bad in law. After the decision of the Supreme Court in Kewal Kri1han Puri v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 1008 holding that the increase of the market fee from Rs. 2 to Rs. 3 perhundred leviable on the agricultural produce brought or sold by a licensee in the notified market area under section 23 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act was not justified, some dealers wanted refund of the market fee in excess of Rs. 2/-per hundred already collected by various market committees. But, the Supreme Court held in Shiv Shankar Dal Mills v. State of Haryana AIR 1980 SC 1037 that dealers who had not passed on the liabilities to others and others who bad contributed to or paid the excess one parcent were entitled to make claim for such sums as were due to them from the concerned market committees a'Jd directed the market committees to pay the same. The Court further directed that the unclaimed amounts, if anyJ shall be permitted to be used by the respective market committee for the purposes falling within the statute as interpreted by this Court in C.A. 1083 of 1977. Thereafter more or less in tune wilh these directions given by the Court, the Punjab Agricultaral Produce Markets Act was amended by the introduction of section 23-A It priovided, inter alia, that nctwith- standing anything contained in any judgment decree or order of any courtJ it shall be lawful for a committee to retain the fee levied and collected by it from a licensee in excess of that leviable under section 23 if the burden of such fee passed on by the licensee to the next purchaser of the agricultural produce in respect whereof such fee was levied and coliected. The appellants challenged before the High Court the constitutional validity of section 23·A and the same was upheld. The appellant contended (I) that Section 23-A was a blatant. attempt to validate a levy which had been declared invalid by the Supreme Court and this was not permissible (2) that while the legislature was competent to enact a law for the levy of fee and matters incidental and ancillary thereto, it was incompetent to legislate providing for the retention by any authority of fee illegally levied. 1 • I ' 1 . ' ' ; • -1 AMAR. NATH OMPARi:ASH v. PUNlAli Dismissing the appeals by tho appellants HELD : (1) The general scheme of the Pnnjab Agriculture Produce Markets Act and the Act, as amended and in force in Haryana, are broadly on the same lines as the Madras and the Andbra Pradesh Acts and similar enactments in other States. Sections 13, 26 and 28 of the Act covers a vast range of topics and are so wide as take in a multitude of direct and indirect ways of achieving the principal object of the Act, namely, the better regulation of the purchase, sale, storage and processing of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for agricultural produce. Some of the purposes for which the funds may be expended may on a first · impression appear to be municipal or govenmental functions, but a closer scrutiny will reveal that they are clearly associated with providing better facilities for marketing of agricultural produce. [81H; 86C-D) (2) The primary pµrpose of s. 23·A is to prevent the refund of licence fee by the market committee to dealers, who have already passed on the burden of such fee to the next pucrhaser of the agricultural produce and who want to unjustly enrich themselves by obtaining the refund from the market committee. S. 23·A, in truth recognises the consumer-pubiic who have borne the ultimate burden as the persons who have really paid the amount and so entitled to refund of any excess fee collected and there· fore directs the market committee representing their interests to retain the amount. It has to be in this form because it would, in practice, be a difficult and futile exercise to attem
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.