Punjab-Haryana High Court
Anand Canvass Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Haryana And Ors. on 5 May, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1993)104PLR232
JUDGMENT A.L. Bahri, J.
1. By this order, two writ petitions (C. W. P. No. 2863 of 1991 and C. W. P. No. 6680 of 1991) filed under Article 266 of the Constitution of India are being disposed of. The judgment is being prepared in C. W. P. 2863 of 1991.
2. The petitioner prays for a mandamus directing the respondents not to charge market fee again on the agricultural produce brought for processing. The petitioner is running a roller flour mill at Gurgaon. The petitioner purchases agricultural produce from Gurgaon as well as from other market committee areas situated in the State of Haryana The petitioner claims exemption from payment of market fee at Gurgaon with respect to wheat brought from other market committees on the ground that the market fee had already been paid there. Necessary formalities as required under the rules were observed except that Form LL which were required to be submitted to the respondent Market Committee at Gurgaon within a period of ten days were slightly delayed. On that account the respondent-Market Committee issued notice Annexure P-1 on November 21,1990, calling upon the petitioner to pay the market fee with respect to the wheat brought, details whereof were given in Annexure attached therewith Similarly, on that very day, notice Annexure P-1 was issued to the petitioner calling him upon to pay the market fee Rs. 5,270 92 and with respect to wheat brought in respect of the sale transaction mentioned in annexure attached there to The claim of the petitioner is that since the market fee had already been paid at the places from where the wheat was brought, the Market Committee Gurgaon (respondent No. 3) could not again claim market fee even if there was breach of Rule 30 (5) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (as applicable to Haryana).
3. On notice of motion having been issued, written statement has been filed by respondent No. 3, stating inter alia that on account of breach of Rule 39 (5) of the Rules aforesaid, the market fee could be claimed,
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and in our considered view the Market Committee could not again claim market fee on the agriculture produce brought by the petitioner for processing within the market area of Gurgaon. Reference may be made to Rule 39 (4), (5) of the Rules which read as Under :-
"Exemption from payment of market fees .-
(1), (2), (3) xx xx xx
(a) It shall be the duty of the dealer claiming exemption from market fee under sub rule (3) and (5) to produce a copy of R/R. forwarding note bilty or challan, as the case may be, duly signed by him or his authorised agent in the office of the committee from whose market area the agricultural produce is brought before it is unloaded, the second copy in the office of the committee within whose market area the agricultural produce is brought before it is unloaded and the third copy to be retained by him Provided that if no such copy of R/R, forwarding note, bilty or challan is produced in the office of the concerned Committee, no claim for exemption shall be entertained.
(5) The agricultural produce brought for processing from within the State and for which market fee has already been paid in any market in the State, shall be exempted from payment of market fee second time Provided that the dealer who claims exemption under Sub-rule 5 from the payment of fee leviable on any agricultural produce brought for processing shall make declaration and give certificate to the committee in Form LL duly attested by the Secretary of the Committee where fee has already been paid, within ten days of the bringing of agricultural produce within the notified market area and complies with the provisions of sub-rule (2)".
5. A reading of the rule aforesaid makes it clear that when agricultural produce is brought within the market area of any market committee, prompt information is required to be given to the market committee as required under sub-rule (4) of Rule 30 as referred above. If sub rule (4) is not complied with, no exemption can be claimed by the dealer. However, apart from compliance of Sub-rule (4), the dealer is also required to comply with Sub-rule 5, i.e., producing Form LL from the Market Committee from where goods were purchased and brought, indicating payment of the market fee. Such forms should be submitted within a period of ten days (20 days after the amendment). In the present case, in notices P-1 and P-2, breach of Rule 30 (5) only was allowed and that too to the extent of delay in the submission of form LL Certificates are required to be given on Form LL by the Market Committee from where it would be clear that market fee on the agricultural produce stands paid at a place of issuing of the certificate. The form is also prescribed under Rule 30 (3) of the rules which has to indicate payment of the amount of fee with the day, number and date of receipt. This would show payment of market fee and obviously in view of Rule 30 (5) of the Rules, the market fee cannot be levied second time on the same agricultural produce.
6. It may be observed that on account of mere delay in the submission of Form LL, the Market Committee would have no jurisdiction to impose market fee again on such agricultural produce. Since there was breach of the rule in late submission of Form LL by the petitioner, at the most action could be taken under Rule 39 for imposing penalty for which respondent Market Committee has not take a any action so far.
7. For the reasons recorded, Annexures P-1 and P-2 cannot be sustained in law and are hereby quashed (In C. W. P. No. 6680) 1991, notice Annexure P-1 is quashed). No costs.