Karnataka High Court
M/S. Vijayalakshmi Rice Mills vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 January, 2018
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION No.40069/2016 (APMC)
BETWEEN
M/s. VIJAYALAKSHMI RICE MILLS,
TADAGANI, SHIRALAKOPPA,
SHIKARIPURA TALUK,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 428
BY ITS PARTNER
SMT. A.V. VIJAYALAKSHMI,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.V RAMESH JOIS, ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT,
SHIVAMOGGA -577 201.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL MARKETING,
NO. 16, 2ND RAJABHAVAN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-2-
4. THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE
SHIKARIPURA -577428,
SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT,
BY ITS SECRETARY. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI Y.D.HARSHA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE
FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 3
SRI MALLIKARJUN C BASAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR
RESPONDENT No.4 VIDE ORDER DATED 17.01.2017)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-K
DATED 29.06.2016 FOR EXTENSION OF EXEMPTION FOR
SEVEN MORE YEARS TO THE PETITIONER INDUSTRY AS PER
THE INTEGRATED AGRI-BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT POLICY,
2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN GOVERNMENT ORDER
No.AHD/172/AFT2010, DATED 05.03.2011 BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT AND ALSO AS PER SEC.65(6) OF THE
KARNATAKA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING
(DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2013
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner, which is a small scale agricultural produce processing industry engaged in hulling paddy, manufacture of rice and rice products and registered with the second respondent, has sought for a direction to the -3- respondents to consider their representation dated 29.06.2016 vide Annexure 'K' to the petition for extension of exemption of seven more years to the petitioner industry as per the Integrated Karnataka Agri-Business Development Policy, 2011, appended to Government order No.AHD/172/AFT/2010 Bangalore dated 05.03.2011 vide Annexure 'F' to the petition and also as per Section 65(6) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 2013.
2. Comprehensive Integrated Karnataka Agri- Business Development Policy, 2011 for the year 2014 to 2019 came into effect by Government order dated 01.10.2014. As per the Government order, payment of APMC Cess, has been exempted. It is the submission that despite the Government order, the authorities are demanding the market fee. It is informed that the Rules under the said policy has to be framed and till it is approved by the Government, petitioner is supposed to pay the market fee. Hence, this petition. -4-
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the Government order has been passed by the Cabinet, it cannot be deprived on the alleged ground that Rules are to be approved. In this regard, the decision in STATE OF M.P. & OTHERS v. NANDLAL JAISWAL & OTHERS, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 566. Para -30 is placed reliance wherein it has been held that "it is difficult to understand as to why policy decision dated December 30, 1984 cannot be given effect to without any new rules being made by the State Government. There is nothing in the policy decision dated December 30, 1984, which is contrary to the Rules made under the Act. Also decision in LLOYD ELECTRIC & ENGINEERING LTD., v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & OTHERS, reported in (2016) 1 SCC 560 Para-18 is relied upon to the effect once the cabinet decision is there, implementing department cannot issue a notification contrary to the policy decision taken by the Government.
4. On the other hand, the Government filed statement of objection and submitted Rules have been forwarded for its approval and it is further submitted that -5- reasonable time is needed for the respondents to get approval.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The question involved is whether the petitioner is liable to pay market fee which is covered by the policy, which came with effect from 01.10.2014. When the field is occupied by the Government order, the Government authority cannot insist the petitioner to pay market fee on the ground that Rules are yet to be framed and approved. Once the highest executive body has taken a policy decision, it has to be obeyed by all the departmental authorities. Rules is to be framed which is nothing but procedural aspect. What has been granted by the Government cannot even for temporary period be deprived by the Governmental instrumentalities.
6. The Government Advocate seeks reasonable time for obtaining approval. It is for the respondents to get approval. But the respondents or its agency cannot insist for -6- market fee quite contrary to the Karnataka Agri-Business Development Policy 2014-19.
7. With these observations, these petitions stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma