Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Kurnool Dist. Rice Millers Association ... vs Agricultural Market Committee, ... on 22 January, 1998
Equivalent citations: 1998(3)ALD167, 1998(1)ALT829, AIR 1998 ANDHRA PRADESH 212, (1998) 3 ANDHLD 167, (1998) 1 APLJ 228, (1998) 1 ANDH LT 829, (1998) 1 LS 238
Author: B. Subhashan Reddy
Bench: B. Subhashan Reddy
ORDER B. Subhashan Reddy, J.
1. In this batch of writ petitions, the complaint is that even though there is no sale or purchase within the area of a Market Committee, they are being harassed and subjected to pay the market fees again and again. Under Section 12(1) of A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, the Market Committee is obligated to levy the fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the notified market area at the rate specified. There is a presumption under Explanation I to the above section that all notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock taken out of a notified market area shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been purchased or sold within such area. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 places an obligation on the purchaser to pay the said market fees and only if purchaser cannot be identified, then the market fees shall be paid by the seller. The scope of relevant rule, which falls for consideration, is Rule 74(1) of A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, 1969. The said rule explains the extent of the liability of the effect that if the fees leviable under sub-section (1) of Section 12 on notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock, if paid to a Market Committee within the State shall not be collected by another Market Committee when such notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock are brought into the notified market area of another Market Committee for the purpose of processing, pressing, packing, storage, export and on sales effected in the course of commercial transactions between the licensed traders, and the licensed traders and consumers subject to production of such evidence as may be prescribed in the Bye-laws about the payment of market fees from where it was brought.
2. A reading of the above rule leaves no doubt that if there is no transaction of sale or purchase within the market area and if the goods are brought from outside and or in transit passing through the area of another Market Committee, they cannot be subjected to payment of market fees again. Since mere is a presumption under Explanation I to sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act, such persons carrying the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock shall have to produce evidence to the effect that they are being brought from outside the market area and on production of such evidence, the officers of the Market Committee cannot insist upon payment of market fees again. What is relevant and pertinent is a transaction of sale or purchase within the market area for the first time and then market fees is compulsorily leviable, but no market fees can be collected if they had already suffered market fees of another Market Committee. In Sreenivasa General Traders v. State of A.P., AIR 1993 SC 1246, several questions arose with regard to prohibition contained in Section 7(6) against purchase or sale of notified agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock in notified market area outside the market in that area, as also the liability of trader to pay market fees in respect of transactions of sale or purchase in notified area and the Supreme Court upheld the said provisions even if the transaction is carried on from their business premises in the notified market area, but outside the market in that area. The Supreme Court also dealt with the argument with regard to quid pro quo and held that establishment of a regulated market for the purchase or sale of notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock is itself a service rendered to persons engaged in the business of purchase or sale of such commodities. Dealing with Section 12(1) of the Act and also proviso to Rule 74(1) of A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, it was held by the Supreme Court that Rule 74(1) read with the proviso means that if the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock is sold within the market maintained by a market Committee, it is liable to pay market fees on each such sale made within the market yard, but Market Committee is not entitled to levy market fees for the second time, if the agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock had already suffered market fees elsewhere regardless of the second sale in the market area, but outside the market yard.
3. Varied complaints are made in the writ petitions that even at the check posts, the vehicles, both bullock-carts and motor vehicles carrying the agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock are being hauled-up and the market fees is extracted under threat and coercion. In view of the rule position and the interpretation of the same by the Supreme Court, the legal position with regard to liability to pay market fees is clear to the effect that;
(i) that if there is a sale or purchase of agricultural produce, livestock or. products of livestock within a market area for the first time, the market fees is liable to be paid;
(ii) it is the purchaser who is liable to pay the market fees and only if the purchaser cannot be identified, then the seller can be obligated to pay the said market fees;
(iii) the agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock which are carried by any means and entering into the area of a Market Committee, cannot be subject to pay the market fees for the second time if proof is produced before the Officers of the Market Committee of the market fees having been paid in another Market Committee; and
(iv) even at the check-posts, the same procedure has to be followed as referred to above in clause (iii).
4. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs.