Uttarakhand High Court
M/S Mohit Industries vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 18 July, 2013
Author: V.K. Bist
Bench: V.K. Bist
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 1656 of 2013 (M/S)
M/s Mohit Industries. ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and another. .......Respondents
Mr. Manish Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. J.C. Belwal, Advocate for respondent-Mandi Samiti.
Dated: July 18, 2013
Hon'ble V.K. Bist, J.
In the instant petition, the petitioner is aggrieved with the notice issued by the respondent-Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti under Section 27 of Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 2011 which is amended by Section 2(1) & proviso of Section 2 (3) of Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Amendment Act, 2012.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that same controversy is involved in Special Appeal No. 141 of 2013 in which an interim order has been passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 17.05.2013. He also supplied copy of interim order dated 17.05.2013 passed in Special Appeal No. 141 of 2013.
Learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State vehemently opposed for grant of interim order with the contention that the State Government has legislative competence to Legislate, and therefore, amendment made in the Act is justified. He contended that no substantial plea has been taken in the writ petition regarding violation of fundamental rights and no third ground is yet 2 to be recognized by the Apex Court to challenge the validity of the Act. He contended that unless and so long as the provision of amended Act is there and has not struck down, any action taken is legally valid.
Mr. J.C. Bewlwal, Advocate for Mandi Samiti also opposed for grant of interim order. He relied in paragraph no.121 of the judgment reported in 1999 (9) SCC page 620 and submitted that in that case in which interim order is granted, the article was not agriculture produce, whereas the article in the instant case is agriculture produce. He further contended that the Mandi Samiti is demanding Mandi Fee and development cess in pursuance of amended Act. He submitted that so far the amended provision is there, no interim order should be granted in favour of writ petitioner. He further contended that in case in view of the order of Division Bench, any interim order is passed, in that eventuality interest of the Mandi Samiti should be protected, inasmuch as, petitioner should be asked to deposit the amount of Mandi Fee and development cess, as the case may be. He submits that amount deposited by the petitioner shall be kept in separate account.
On this, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to give undertaking before the authority concerned, in the affidavit, that in case the petition is dismissed, the petitioner will deposit the Mandi Tax/development cess with interest.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of undertaking given by the counsel for the petitioner and also considering the fact that in identical matter, 3 interim order was granted by the Division Bench of this Court on 17.05.2013 in Special Appeal No. 141 of 2013, it is directed that status-quo, as of today, be maintained till next date of listing.
List this petition on 12th August, 2013. By that time the respondents may file their counter affidavit.
Stay application (CLMA No. 6937/2013) stands disposed of.
(V.K. Bist, J.) 18.07.2013 NCM: