LexRAUNAQ RAM TARA CHAND & ORS. ETC. versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• - - • I A RAUNAQ RAM TARA CHAND & ORS. ETC. v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. July 14, 1975 (A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. N. BHAGWATI AND P. K. GOSWAMI, JJ.] B Pun;ah Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961---Sections 6, 10, 23-Punjab c D E F G H Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules. 1962-Rules 17~ 29 and 31- Jf'hether fees can he levied on persons who a,re not licensees as contemplared by Section 23 'and rule 29. The appellants sell Gur and Shakkar within the market area notified under Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. The appellants have obtained licences under section 10 of the Act in Form B as Commission Agents. Since the appellants were selling Gur and Sbakkar in their own shops withfn the notified market area \Vilhout submitting accounts and without payment of fees they were asked to show cause b.v the Market Committee why legal action should not be taken against them for violation of rules 29(3) and 31(1) of the Punjab Agricul- tural Prnduce 1-Iarkets (General) Rules, 1962. The appellants disclaimed the~.r liability to pay the fees under the Act. The Administrator of Market Committee levied fees on the appe11ants on the basis of best judgment assessment and also imposed penalty. The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions filed by the appel- lants and quashed the order of assessment as arbitrary and violaEve of the princi- ples of natural jUstice. The High Court, however, rejected the contention of the appellants questioning the validity of the fees levied. Under section 10 of the Act any person may apply for a licence which may be granted on such conditions as may be prescribed. Under section 6 (3) after the :.ssue of a notification under section 6(1) no person can purchase or sell any agricultural produce except under a licence granted in accordance with lhe pro- visions of the Act. Section 23 authorizes the Committee to levy fees on the agri- cultural produce bought or sold by the licensees in the notified ma-rket area. Rule 29 provides that the Committee shall levy fees on the agricultural produce bought or sold by licensees in the no'ified market area. Rule 17(1) provides that a per- son desirous of cbtaining a licence under section 10 of the Act shall apply in form A. The licence granted to the appellant is in accordance with form B. No licence has been issued to the appellants for doing the business of buying and selling agricultural produce. Therefore, although the appellants are licensees as required for some of the businessses mentioned in Form B. they have no licence for carrying on business of purchase and sale of agricultural produce within the notified ?i.farkcl Area. Reading section 23 and rule 29 it is clear that the Act authorises levy of' fee on the agricultural produce bought or sold by licensees only. Allowing the appeal, llELD : The apoellants have not as a matter of fact been issued licence<; <is contemplated by section 23 and rule 29, and no fees can, therefore, be levied on then1 in respect of purchase and sale of agricultural produce by them. The ao- pcl!ants a-re, therefore, not liable to payment of fee under the Act as demanded . [158..CJ CIVIL APPELLATE JUR!SD!CTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 299 and 120 to 124 of 1972. !'ram the Judgment and Order dated the 25th March. 1970 of the Pun1ab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No 325 of 1968 L p A No. 17_7 of 1969, Civil Writ No. 1534, 1545, 1S29 and 2201 'of "1969 respectively. G. L. San11hi, S. K. Mehta, R. L. Batta and M. Qumamddin for the appellants (in Civil Appeal No. 299/72). ' 2-L714SupCI/75 -~-1 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1976] 1 S.C.l\. V. C. Mahajan, S. S. Khanduja and R. L. Bata, for the appellants (In C.As. Nos. 120-124/72) D. Mukherjee., Hardev Singh, R. S. Sodhi and G. C. Garg, for the respondents. (In C.A. No. 299172). The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GosWAMI, J. In these appeals by certificate of the High Court of Punjab and HarYana v1iidity ofl action taken by the Market Committee, Patiala, under the provisions of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Mar- kets Act., 1961, is under challenge. The appellants are shop-keepers of Gur Mandi, Patiala, and are licensees under section 10 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Mark:etl Act, 1961 (briefly rhe Act) and are also pucca arhtiyas. It is no: ia dispute that they sei1 gur and sbakkar within 1he market area notified under the Act. It is also admitted that they have licences under sectioa 10
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.