In the companytext of the said companytentions urged on behalf of the appellants, the High Court had examined the said statements and projections and recorded findings on these in its judgement.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, V.M. Tarkunde, S.N. Kacker, S.N. Haksar, Mrs. A.K. Verma, Aditya Narain, D.N. Misra, E.R. Inder Kumar, Mukul Mudgal, Mrs. S. Ramachandran, H. Parekh, Mrs. Manju Sharma, Ms. Divya K. Bhalla, S.S. Javali, B.P. Singh, and Ranjit Kumar for the appearing Appellants.
R. Mridul, S.T. Desai, H.B. Datar, R.P. Bhatt, K.L. Sharma, A.K. Sen, B.G. Sridharan, Devendra Singh, Mrs. Bina Tamta, R.B. Datar, Swaraj Kaushal, V.C. Brahmraijappa, K.N. Madhysoodhnan, E.C. Vidyasagar, M. Veerappa, Ashok Kumar, G. Shreedharan and R.B. Datar for the Respondents.
Section 65 of the Act as originally stood directed the Market Committees to levy and companylect Market fees from the buyers in respect of agricultural produce by any trader or other person in the yard, and 1 19791 Karnataka L.J. p. 43.
20 of 1973 raising the maximum fee leviable by a Market Committee from 30 paise to one rupee.
In so far as producer sellers and other petitioners who were trade sellers who had paid sellers fee under section 65 1 of the Act, a mandamus to the State Government and to the companycerned Market Committees was directed to be issued in terms indicated in the judgment of the High Court.
R I to R 111 and the other statements when the Writ Petitions were being heard in the High Court.
On the 17th December, 1974, the enhancement of the market fee from 30 paise to one rupee made by the amendment of the bye laws by some of the Market Committees was challenged by the traders buyers of the agricultural produce before the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No.
In several cases markets with decidedly lesser potentialiaties for expansion and handling lesser quantum than other markets propose to spend sums on development which are several times higher than those proposed by those other markets.
537 of 1974 and the companynected writ petitions in the case of K.S. Vaman Rao v. The Agricultral Produce Market Committee.
The High Court had exhaustively discussed this matter and I have 1 19751 2 S.C.R. 511.
The question was somewhat different.
The High Court has, thus, given an opportunity to the Market Committees to fill up the lacuna since the materials supplied thereafter by way of Exs.
24 of 1975 .
R I to R 111 and similar statements perused by the High Court were number available either on the date of the amendment of the bye law enhancing the rate of the market fee from one per cent to two per cent or even on the dates on which the Writ Petitions were filed in the High Court.
The High Court has erred in giving the direction and granting an opportunity to the Market Committees to fill up the lacuna.
Amongst the items which were specially mentioned was an item of outlay of Rs.
605 2526, 3528 3632, 4356 5278, 6977 7173, 7514 8199, 8921 9939, of 1983 and Special Leave Petitions Nos.
The substituted section reads as follows Levy of Market Fees 1 The Market Commit tee shall levy and companylect market fees from every seller in respect of agricultural produce sold by such seller in the market area at the rate of one rupee per one hundred Rupees of the price of such produce sold.
By Act No.
14 of 1976 passed on 24th January, 1976 which replaced and earlier Ordinance.
The appeals, writ petitions and special leave petitions are disposed of accordingly.
The Market Committees shall pay companyts of Rs.
The High Court had also given certain directions.
A.I.R.1970 S.C.192.
3419 20 and 7087 7111 of 1983 and Writ Petition No.
Yasin, 1983 3 SCR 229, referred to.
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.1982 of the Karnataka High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.
15,000 to the parties represented by Mr. Sorabjee and Rs.
10,000 to the parties represented by Mr. Kacker.
section 65 1 was amended by insertion of a proviso to section 65 1 as under Provided that the State Government may, by order in public interest, exempt any Market Committee from such levy and companylection in respect of any agricultural produce.
So far as Hubli market companymittee was companycerned, the High Court dealt with it in detail.
On 1st May, 1968, the Act came into force.
On 1st June, 1976, by the Amending Act No.
So far as the outlay on museum was companycerned, it was an essential amenity for dissemination of ideas and it was therefore valid.
A.I.R.1977 S.C.1686.
60 lakhs for companystruction of shops and small godowns and the third item was the proposed outlay on the museum and the fourth item was the estimated outlay of Rs, 75 lakhs for acquisition of 466 acres of land.
These were disposed of by a companymon order which was representative of the companytentions urged at the hearing of the argument.
The High Court was of the opinion A that some time bound program was necessary to be given for a second look at the estimates.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
As mentioned hereinbefore, there was an outlay of Rs.
l 2 to the enhancement of market fee from 1 to 2 effected by the various Market Committees by amending the bye laws after permissible maximum levy of the fee on the buyers under section 65 2 was raised to 2 per cent by the said Amending Act, the challenge being both on the ground that the amendment of bye laws was made in violation of the mandatory requirements of prior publication and prior sanction companytemplated by section 148 and on the ground that the enhancement of fees fail for want of quid pro quo and 3 to the inclusion of certain items such as wood, cardamom, sugarcane, tobacco in the list of numberified agricultral produce incorporated in the Schedule to the Act.
These appeals arise out of the said order.
On or about 1978 judgment was delivered by the High Court of Karanataka in the case of Rajasekhariah v. Tiptur Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee and Anr.
After detailed examination of these projects, the High Court was of the view that the market companymittees would perhaps be in a position to establish a broad and general companyrelation of 66 per cent On the basis of its present proposals and the High Court came to the companyclusion that these were number unreasonable.
On 9th May, 980, Karnataka Act No.
The High Court in its judgment analysed these submissions and companytentions carefully with reference to the financial statements and projections filed by the market companymittees and these statements were discussed at companysiderable length by the High Court.
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. Some Writ petitions out of a large number of petitions, nearly 4298 in number arising out of The Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act, 1966 hereinafter referred to as the Act were take up by the High Court of Karnataka for hearing and disposed of by one companymon judgment as one or more of the companytentions in those petitions were A companymon, and all the petitions were heard together by the High Court of Karnataka so as to afford opportunities to learned companynsel appearing in the cases to address arguments.
2 of 1979 was promulgated on 3rd November, 1979.
The companyrts merely examined whether the outlays on the companycerned works and services qualified was a special service vis a vis the Fee.
Co. Ltd., 8 I.N. Saxena v. State of M.P., 4 and the Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, 5 the High Court of Karnataka distinguished fee and tax and then referred to the case of Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab.
In these appeals we were companycerned with the provisions of the Act as well as 1 the challenge to the companystitutional validity of section 65 1 of the Act as substituted by The Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Amendment Act, 1980 hereinafter referred to as the Amending Act which sought to validate the market fee levied on the sellers of numberified agricultural produce under section 65 1 , for and during the period of its operation, prior to its being struck down by the Karnataka High Court in Rajasekhariah v. Tiplur Agrl.
1 One of the main companytentions urged before the High Court was that there was numberquid pro quo.
The learned judges directed B that the remaining writ petitions which had been heard along with those cases would be disposed of, in companyvenient batches, following the findings on the various companytentions recorded in that order.
150 lakhs proposed for companystruction of large godowns, second item was of Rs.
Produce Marketing Committee Anr.
The High Court repelled this companytention relying mainly on the decision of this Court in the case of Ganga Sagar Corporation Ltd. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others.
6859 of 1982.
12133 of 1979.
So far as the prayer for issue of mandamus directing refund of sellers market fee paid under section 65 1 sought by producer sellers and trader sellers who had earlier approached the High Court was companycerned, the High Court directed that mandamus should issue.
75 lakhs on the aquisition of land.
The High Court then examined in detail the markets of Sagar, Bijapur, Raichur, Tiptur, Gadag and Siddapur.
The High Court for the reasons recorded and taking all factors into companysideration came to the companyclusion that though there was room for criticism, on the whole, however taking all the relevant factors into companysideration it companyld number be said that the projections were unreasonable.
It may be mentioned that after this judgment, the levy was decreased from 2 per cent to I per cent again.
