Gujarat High Court
Murlidhar Traders vs State Of Gujarat & 3 on 11 March, 2016
Author: C.L.Soni
Bench: C.L. Soni
C/SCA/3998/2016 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3998 of 2016
=================================================
MURLIDHAR TRADERS....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 3....Respondent(s)
=================================================
Appearance:
DILIPKUMAR U PRAJAPATI, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS.SHRUTI PATHAK, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.L. SONI
Date : 11/03/2016
ORAL ORDER
1. Following are the prayers made in paragraph No.8 of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
"8.A. A writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be granted declaring that the Ahmedabad APMC and other respondents have neither power, competence, jurisdiction or authority to regulate food stuff on subsequent transactions after it is processed and packed by the processor nor the traders of the said products are market functionaries under the Gujarat agricultural produce market act, 1963.
B. A writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or A writ of prohibition or a writ in the nature of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction may kindly be granted restraining the respondents, their officers, agents and servants from collecting money as a market fees from the petitioner and from the other similar traders.
C. Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, an interim direction may kindly be granted directing the respondents to not to regulate the transactions related processed packaged food grains or collect money as market fees from the petitioner and other similar traders.
D. Pass such other and further orders as may deem fit in the interest of justice."
2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is in the business of packed processed food and, therefore, cannot be termed as market functionary so as to make it liable to pay market fees. Learned advocate Mr.Dilipkumar U.Prajapati for the petitioner Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Sat Mar 12 02:11:29 IST 2016 C/SCA/3998/2016 ORDER submitted that the market committee is considering the petitioner as market functionary. However, as per the circular of the market committee the petitioner cannot be said to be the market functionary. When asked, as to whether, the market committee has issued any notice to the petitioner, learned advocate Mr.Prajapati stated that the market committee did issue notice. However, Court finds that the petitioner has not placed on record copy of the notice issued by the market committee.
3. The Court having heard learned advocate Mr.Dilipkumar U.Prajapati for the petitioner, finds that the petitioner sought mandamus and wants this Court to declare that the petitioner cannot be made liable to pay market fees, as the petitioner is dealing with packed processed food articles. If the petitioner is not liable to pay any market fees and is entitled to benefit under the circular, as stated by the learned advocate Mr.Prajapati, the petitioner should first approach the market committee either by filing reply to the notice which, as stated by learned advocate Mr.Prajapati, was received by the petitioner or by filing separate application stating that the petitioner is not liable to pay any market fees, or the petitioner can approach the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance making grievance against the Notice issued by the market committee.
4. In view of the above, the petition is not entertained and is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner either approach the market committee or the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance for the grievances raised in the petition.
(C.L.SONI, J.) dharmendra Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Sat Mar 12 02:11:29 IST 2016