Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Ruchi Soya Industries & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 February, 2018

Author: I. P. Mukerji

Bench: I. P. Mukerji

                                         1


12.02.2018
Sl.No. 04
Ct.No.18
 aa
                     IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             APPELLATE SIDE

                                MAT 1624 of 2017
                                     With
                                CAN 9460 of 2017

                             Ruchi Soya Industries & anr.
                                        Vs.
                            The State of West Bengal & Ors.

             Mr. Saurabh Guhathakurata
                                                                 ...for appellants
             Mr. Pradip Kr. Roy
             Ms. Shrabani Sarkar
                                                 ...for the respondent nos. 3,4 & 5

Mr. Abhratosh Majumdar Mr. Avra Mazumder ...for the State The writ application (WP 23700(W) of 2017, Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.) out of which this appeal arises challenges Section 17 of the West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972 as ultra vires.

Under Section 17 of the said Act, the market committee was empowered to levy of fee for agricultural produce sold in the market areas at a specified rate. Under the explanation to Section 17 any produce taken out of the market area or stored in the market area is also deemed to have been sold in that area.

At the admission stage, before Justice Debangsu Basak his lordship noted that the subject matter of the writ could only be appreciated further to filing of affidavits and that the balance of convenience lay in favour of refusing the interim order prayed for staying operation of the Act or collection of market fee.

Hence this appeal.

We do not think that the learned Single Judge committed any error in making the decision. Any order touching the validity of an Act should only be passed after all the papers are before the court. The court rightly directed to exchange of affidavits.

Furthermore, very rightly the court refused the interim order, as it would have the effect of disrupting the collection of market fees at the ad interim stage.

In those circumstances, we dispose of this appeal by directing that the writ should be heard out by the court below as expeditiously as possible.

We notice that the State has not filed their affidavit-in- opposition.

We also note that the respondent nos. 1 and 5 have not used any affidavits. We extend the time by 10 days for them to do so.

Therefore, the affidavit-in-opposition is to be filed by 21st February, 2018.

List the writ application on 12th March, 2018. Affidavit-in-reply may be filed in the meantime. It will be open to the appellants to approach the trial court if the respondent contemplates any coercive action. Before taking any coercive action, the respondent will give at least 72 hours notice to the appellants/petitioners. With the above observations, the appeal (MAT 1624 of 2017) and the connected application (CAN 9460 of 2017) are disposed of.

Urgent certified photo copy of this order, if applied for, be given to learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

( I. P. Mukerji,J. ) ( Md. Mumtaz Khan,J. )