Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 September, 2017
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1
12.09.2017.
rc
W.P. No. 23700 (W) of 2017
Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. & Anr.
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Saurabh Guhathakurata ... For the Petitioner
Mr.Abhratosh Majumder
Mr. Prithu Dudhoria
Mr. Avra Majumder .. For the State
Mr. Pradip Kumar Ray
Mr. Shraboni Sarkar ... For the respondents no. 3 to 7
The writ petitioners seek an injunction restraining the respondent no. 5 from demanding any market fees or levies from the petitioner under section 17 of the West Bengal Agricultural Products Market (Regulation) Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act of 1972"). The vires of explanation to section 17 of the said Act of 1972 is under challenge in the present writ petition.
Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is an importer of a material and is not amenable to the market fees as charged by the respondent no. 5 under the said Act of 1972. According to him, the said Act of 1972 has no manner of application to the transactions had by the petitioner. He submits that the respondent no. 5 is demanding huge amounts from the petitioner without the due process of law, particularly, without adhering to sections 17A and 34 of the said Act of 1972.
The State is represented by the learned Additional Advocate General. He submits that, an opportunity should be afforded to file affidavits.
Learned advocate for the respondent no. 5 submits that, the writ petitioner is in the habit of filing repeated writ petitions on the same issue. He draws the attention of the 2 orders passed in the writ petitions in which the Court had refused to grant any interim relief to the petitioner.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
This is possibly the 4th writ petition at the behest of the writ petitioner on the same issue. Be that as it may, the liability of the petitioner to pay duties and levies under the said Act of 1972 received the consideration of the Court, at least at the interim stage, where the respondent no. 5 was permitted to realise its dues under the provisions of the said Act of 1972.
Learned advocate for the respondent no. 5 has drawn attention of the Court to an order where the petitioner was permitted to approach the respondent no. 5 for suitable installments to pay the outstanding dues.
Apparently there are dues payable by the writ petitioner to the respondent no. 5. In such circumstances the respondent no. 5 will take expeditious measures for the purpose of realisation of the same in accordance with law. The payments so realised by the respondent no. 5 will abide by the result of the writ petition.
The issues raised in the writ petition are such that an opportunity to file affidavit should be given to the respondents.
In such circumstances let affidavit‐in‐opposition be filed within October 23, 2017; affidavit‐in‐reply, if any, be filed within October 30, 2017.
List this writ petition in the monthly list of November, 2017. In the facts of the present case the balance of convenience and/or inconvenience does not lie in favour of the petitioner in granting an order restraining the respondent no. 5 from realising its claim.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
3( Debangsu Basak, J. )