MIS. KUMAON SEEDS COPRN. & ORS. versus KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, KASHIPUR & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 718 · Decided: 03-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, GYAN SUDHA MISRA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

I 
A 
B 
[2011] 3 S.C.R. 718 
MIS. KUMAON SEEDS COPRN. & ORS. 
v. 
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI, KASHIPUR & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No(s). 3630 of 2007) 
MARCH 03, 2011 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 -
Certified seeds - Market fee - Levy of - Issuance of show 
C cause notices by market Committee to dealer in certified 
seeds with regard to imposition of market fee on seeds - Suits 
filed challenging the show cause notices - Dismissed by High 
Court - On appeal, held: High Court while dealing only with 
the validity of the show cause notices made certain 
D observations even. on merits of the matter, which was not 
justified - After the High Court upheld the validity of the show 
cause notices, the Market Committee did not fix any date, time 
and place for the hearing of the dealers in response to the 
show cause notices but straightaway proceeded to issue 
E notices directing the dealers to pay the market fee on certified 
seeds which was not justified - There was violation of the 
principles of natural justice - Thus, such notices set aside -
Market Committees permitted to issue fresh notices to the 
dealers fixing the date, time and place for the hearing to the 
F show cause notices and on that date they can file their 
response and any other material which they wish to produce 
and only thereafter, the Market Committees can decide the 
matter by a reasoned order - Principles of natural justice. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
G 3630 of 2007 etc. 
H 
From the Judgment & Order dated 07.07.2005 of the High 
Court of Judicature of Utaranchal, at Nainital, in First Appeal 
No. 1073 of 2001. 
718 
KUMAON SEEDS COPRN. & ORS. v. KRISHI 
UTPADAN MANDI SAMIT!, KASHIPUR & ORS. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 3631 of 2007. 
; 
719 
P.S. Patwalia, Vibha Datta Makhija for the Appellants. 
A 
Sudhir Chandra, Rachana S~ivastava for the Respondents. 
B 
. •· 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
Heard learned counsel :for the appearing parties. 
C 
These Appeals have been filed against the impugned 
common judgment of the High Court of Uttarachal (Now, the 
. High Court of Uttarakhand) dated 07.07.2005 passed in First 
Appeal No. 1072 of 2001 and First Appeal No. 1073 of 2001. 
D 
The· appellants claim to be dealing in certified seeds. 
Seeking to impose market fee on those seeds under the Uttar 
Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, the 
respondents issued show cause notices to the appellants. The 
appellants filed civil suits challenging the said show cause 
E 
notices and the matter went upto the High Court which 
dismissed the suits by the impugned judgment. 
In our opinion, the High Court should not have gone into 
the merits of the matter because it was only dealing with the 
F 
validity o1 the show cause notices in question and not deciding 
the matter on merits. However, it appears that certain 
observations have been made even on the merits of the case 
by the High Court in the impugned judgment, which, in our 
opinion, was not justified. 
After the High Court upheld the validity of the show eause 
notices, the concerned Market Committees should then have 
issued notices to the appellants fixing a date, time and place 
G 
for the hearing of the appellants in response to that show cause 
notices, and in that hearing, the appellants should have been 
H 
720 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2011) 3 S.C.R. 
A allowed to appear either in-person or through their 
representatives and permitted to file their objections and any 
other material which they wished to produce and only thereafter 
should the matter have been decided, one way or the other, by 
the Market Committees concerned, by a reasoned order after 
B considering the response of the appellants as well as the other 
material. 
c 
It appears that the above procedure was not followed and, 
hence, in our opinion, there was violation of the principles of 
natural justice. 
After the impugned judgment of the High Court, the 
concerned Market Committees never fixed any date, time and 
place for the hearing of the appellants in response to the show 
cause notices but straightaway it proceeded to issue notices 
D dated 27.07.2005 directing the appellants to pay the market 
fee on certified seeds which, in our opinion, was not justified. 
Hence, we set aside the notices dated 27.07.2005 but we 
permit the Market Committees concerned to issue fresh notices 
to the appellants fixing therein
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.