Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 April, 2015
Author: I.P. Mukerji
Bench: I.P. Mukerji
226 21.04.15
W.P. 7650(W) of 2014
Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Sourabh Guha Thakurata
Mr. Parvej Anam .... For the Petitioners.
Mr. Pradip Roy
Mr. Debasish Karmakar
Mr. Joydeep Roy
Ms. Shraboni Sarkar .... For the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6.
This writ challenges a notice dated 5th February, 2014 issued by the Howrah Zilla Regulated Market Committee to the writ petitioner company (hereinafter writ petitioner) asking them to file a return under Section 17(A) of the West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972.
Mr. Sourabh Guha Thakurata, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner attacked this notice on points which seemed to be most interesting.
He argued that the impugned notice had been issued by the Secretary of the purported market committee under the Act. This Committee had not been properly constituted under Sections 5 and 6 of the said Act. Hence the notice was without jurisdiction and illegal. He also submitted that his S.D. client was doing business under the renamed Howrah Zilla Regulated Market Committee.
On 11th January, 2011, the District Magistrate was appointed under Section 22 to discharge the administrative functions but thereafter no market committee was properly constituted under Sections 5 and 6.
It was also urged that the writ petitioner was doing business in packaged edible oil, which was not an agricultural produce within the meaning of the said Act.
Furthermore, the writ petitioner was only warehousing or storing the goods in a warehouse within the jurisdiction of the Zilla Regulated Market Committee and were not trading or selling the product.
On the other hand, Mr. Pradip Roy learned Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 to 6 took me through the definition of West Bengal Agricultural Produce in Section 2(a), the definition of a trader under Section 2(t). He also showed me the provisions regarding the issuance of a licence under Section 13. Showing me the Application Form signed by the writ petitioner he said that the writ petitioner applied for obtaining licence under Section 13 of the said Act. They were effecting sale from his warehouse. The writ petitioner should be compelled to file the necessary return as asked for in the impugned notice.
Mr. Roy shows me a notification dated 14th November, 2014 from which it appears that the Howrah Zilla Regulated Market Committee has been duly constituted by the Government of West Bengal.
Therefore, the first point of Mr. Guha Thakurata fails.
On 6th March, 2013 by letter the writ petitioner forwarded a cheque of Rs.10,00000/- to the Secretary of the Market Committee, Howrah without prejudice to their rights and contentions.
In my opinion, the above issues that have arisen are factual and should be resolved at the appropriate forum.
Section 2(2) of the said Act enacts that, if any, question arises as to a person is or is not an agriculturist or a trader within the meaning of this Act, the decision of the Director defined in Section 2(i)(e) on such question shall be final.
I think that the disputes between the parties should be referred to the Director, namely the issues whether the writ petitioner is a trader/seller of goods etc. and whether the commodity dealt with by them is an agricultural produce or not.
The Director will pass a reasoned order upon hearing the parties within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order.
For this limited period or till the decision of the Director the impugned notice will remain stayed.
The fate of the notice will depend upon by the adjudication to be made by the Director.
This writ application is accordingly disposed of.
The application being C.A.N. 9762 of 2014 is also accordingly disposed of.
Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on priority basis.
( I.P. Mukerji, J.)