The respondent number1 appeared before appellant number1 on the date fixed, namely January 14, 1998, along with the relevant records and submitted that the rice had been purchased from places outside the State of U.P. and had been sent directly to the ports for being exported to South Africa and as such, it was number liable to pay any market fee.
The High companyrt did number accept the said stand and allowed the writ petition filed.
The sale price of the rice was received by the respondent number1 through its banker viz.
The Bill of Lading was given to the clearing and forwarding agents and on receipt of the Bill of Lading by the buyer through the respondent number1s bankers, the rice were retired by the buyer in South Africa.
The object for which the Act was enacted is as follows to reduce the multiple trade charges, levies and exactions charged at present from the produce sellers to provide for the verification of accurate weight and scales and see that the producer seller is number denied his legitimate due to establish market companymittees in which the agricultural producer will have his due representation to ensure that the agricultural producer has his say in the utilization of market funds for the improvement of the market as a whole to provide for fair settlement of disputes relating to the sale of agricultural produce.
The respondent number1 sent a reply on October 18, 1997, stating that it had never purchased any rice from inside the State of U.P. number any transaction of sale or purchase of rice was carried out within the State, It was accordingly requested that the demand numberice order dated October 12, 1997, be rescinded.
The appellant passed an order on January 25, 1998, holding that the transaction of sale of the rice exported by the respondent number1 firm took place within the market area of Ghaziabad, and, accordingly, the market fee imposed by the order dated October 12, 1997 was valid and proper.
The case of the respondent number1 was that the rice was exported by it because certain dealers in South Africa wanted to buy rice from India.
After the goods had been loaded a Bill of Lading was prepared and signed by the Master of the ship in the capacity of carrier acknowledging the receipt of the goods.
It wanted to purchase broken rice from the rice millers of U.P. for the purpose of export to foreign companyntries and accordingly, made an application on July 31, 1997, to Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Ghaziabad, for grant of a licence.
The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in short the Constitution was filed for quashing the orders dated October 12, 1997 passed by appellant number1 and the order dated March 9, 1998 passed by appellant number2.
Thereafter, the appellant number1 sent a demand numberice to the respondent number1 on October 12, 1997, demanding market fee at the rate of 2 percent amounting to Rs.12,94,860.00.
Oriental Bank of Commerce at Delhi.
The respondent number1 quoted the rates and entered into negotiations.
to provide amenities to the producer seller in the market to arrange for better storage facilites to stop inequitable and unauthorized charges and levies from the producer seller and to make adequate arrangements for market intelligence with a view to posting the agricultural producer with the latest position in respect of the markets dealing with his produce.
It was also stated in the application that the respondent had exported rice in November, 1996 by purchasing it from places outside U.P. Appellant No.1 asked the respondent number1 to deposit the licence fees for the years 1995 96, 1996 97 and 1997 98, which was done as per the demand.
The case of the present appellants was that the business establishment of the respondent is at 14, Navyug Market Ghaziabad and the entire transaction was done from the said place.
The appellant number1, however, initiated proceeding for recovery of the amount in question and issued a citation dated December 6, 1997.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that since the transaction took place within the jurisdiction of the market area, the levy was justified and the High Court was wrong in its view.
The learned Single Judge, who heard the petition, was of the opinion that the company troversy raised involved a substantial question of law of general importance and made a reference to larger Bench.
Feeling aggrieved, the respondent number1 preferred a revision under Section 32 of the Act before the Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow appellant number2 which was dismissed by order dated March 9, 1998.
The respondent number1 thereafter, filed C.M. Writ Petition No, 43329 of 1997 in the High Court which was disposed of on December 17, 1997, with a direction to appellant number1 to decide the respondent number1s representation within a month and the recovery proceeding were suspended for six months.
After the deal was settled, the rice was purchased from rice millers in Haryana, Punjab, Madhya Pradesh from where it was directly dispatched to the ports of Mumbai and Kandla and clearing and forwarding agents of the respondent number1 loaded the same on the ship.
The purchase order was received and accepted by it at Ghaziabad and the sale price was also received there and therefore the transaction of sale took place in Ghaziabad.
It is the specific case of the respondent number1 was that the entire quantity of the exported rice was purchased from places outside the State of U.P. and was directly sent to the ports without it ever companying within the market area of Ghaziabad or in the State of U.P. It was also asserted that the sale was affected only at the ports when the goods were loaded in the ship and the Bill of Lading was handed over to the respondent number1s clearing and forwarding agents.
That is how the matter came before the Division Bench.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows Respondent is a registered partnership firm having its business premises and office at 14, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad, and it carried on the business of sale and purchase of iron and steel and also export of rice.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding that the appellant was number entitled to levy market fee under Section 17 iii b of the P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 in short the Adhiniyam if the agricultural produce is neither brought number taken out of the market place, and deciding in favour of respondent number1.
