Chattisgarh High Court
Anil Agrawal vs Krishi Upaj Mandi Samity Nevra And Ors. ... on 27 August, 2018
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Judgment reserved on 13-8-2018
Judgment delivered on 27-8-2018
FA No. 49 of 2002
• Anil Agrawal s/o. Shri Radheshyam Agrawal, M/s Shyam rice and
Parboiling Unit 2, r/o village Nevra Tahsil and Dist. Raipur (CG).
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samity Nevra,. Tahsil and District Raipur.
2. Dogendra Nayak, President, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samity, Nevra,
Tahsil and District. Raipur.
3. Mahendra Singh Savanni, Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samity,
Nevra, Tahsil and Dist. Raipur.
4. Kashiram Verma, Chief Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samity,
Nevra, tahsil and District Raipur.
---- Respondents
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For appellant : Mr. B.P. Sharma, Advocate.
For respondents : Mr. Aman Tamboli Advocate on behalf of
Mr. R.S. Marhas, Advocate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma
CAV JUDGMENT
1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the order dated passed by the 3rd Additional District Judge, Raipur (CG) in Civil Suit No. 14-A/2001 (amounting to decree under Section 2(2) of CPC 1908), wherein the said Court rejected the plaint filed by the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC on the ground that there is provision of appeal under Section 34 of the Chhattisgarh 2 Krish Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (for short, "the Act, 1972") against the order passed under Section 33 (1) of the said Act and civil suit is not maintainable.
2. The facts, in brief, are that the appellant is wholesale dealer dealing in grains and is having a licence to deal in the food- grains products from respondent No.1/Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti as per provisions of the Act, 1972. On 22-1-2001 the appellant has been informed that his licence is cancelled under Section 33 of the Act, 1972 and the said licence was restored on 23-1-2001. The appellant has field a suit before the trial Court stating that he suffered loss day in a day out @ Rs.10,000/- per day, but the trial Court rejected the plaint as mentioned above. As per the appellant, cancellation of licence was not bonafide and, therefore,, suit was maintainable, and therefore, the finding of the trial Court be reversed.
3. Power of cancellation of a licence is conferred on Market Committee and that too for the reasons to be assigned in writing as per Section 33 of the Ac,t, 1972 which may be read as under:
"33. Power to cancel or suspend licences. -
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) a Market Committee may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspend or cancel a licence,-3
(a) if the licence has been obtained through wilful misrepresentation or fraud; or
(b) if the holder of the licence or any servant or any one acting on his behalf with his express or implied permission, commits a breach of any of the terms or conditions of the licence; or
(c) if the holder of the licence in combination with other licence holders commits any act or abstains from carrying on his normal business in the market area with the intention of wilfully obstructing, suspending or stopping the marketing of notified agricultural produce in the market yard/yards and in consequence whereof the marketing of any produce has been obstructed, suspended or stopped;
(d) if the holder of the licence has become an insolvent;
(e) if the holder of the licence incurs any disqualification as may be prescribed, or
(f) if the holder of the licence is convicted of any offence under this Act."
4. In the present case, order of cancellation was not filed by the respondent before the trial Court and it is also not established that any appeal is preferred under Section 34 of the Act, 1972. As per Section 66 of the said Act, 1972, no suit in respect of anything in good faith done or intended to be done under this Act or rules or bye-laws made thereunder, shall lie against the Manning Director or any officer of the State Government or against the Board or any market committee, or against any 4 officer or servant of the Board or any person acting under and in accordance with the directions of the Managing Director, such officer, or such committee.
5. It is clear from plain reading of the Section 66 of the said Act, 1972 that jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred only when authority of Krish Upaj Mandi is acting in good faith and/or acting as per direction of the Managing Director. In the present case, no order under Section 33 regarding cancellation of licence of the appellant is produced before the trial Court and no proceeding regarding any appeal under Section 34 of the Act, 1972 is filed, therefore, the trial Court ought to have considered whether the act of the respondent is done in good faith, but without appreciating the material placed on record in its true perspective the trial Court straight-way rejected the plaint which is not sustainable.
6. Since all the above aspects of the matter have not been con- sidered by the trial court, I am of opinion that this matter requires re-consideration for adjudication afresh from the end of the trial Court.
7. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the trial Court is set aside. Now the matter is remitted back to the tri- al Court for reconsideration afresh in the light of observations made in this order.
5
8. The trial Court is directed to re-hear the matter and after providing opportunity to both parties shall decide the matter afresh, in accordance with law.
9. Both parties are directed to appear before the trial court for further proceedings on 24-9-2018
10. As the plaint is rejected by the trial court and the case is remitted back to the trial court for re-hearing the matter afresh, Registry shall issue a certificate authorising the appellant to receive back from the Collector the full amount of fee paid on the memorandum of the appeal as per provisions of Section 13 of the Indian Court Fees Act, 1870.
Sd/-
(Ram Prasanna Sharma) JUDGE Raju