Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shankar Dal Udyogthr. Its Propritor ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 10 January, 2024
Author: Maninder S. Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
ON THE 10 th OF JANUARY, 2024
WRIT PETITION No. 27955 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
AJAY FOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. THR. ITS DIRECTOR
MANISH GHAI S/O DARSHANLAL GHAI AGED ABOUT 45
YEARS OCCUPATION BUSINESSMAN R/O NEAR
MADHAV NAGAR GATE KATNI, DISTT. KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI DISTT.
KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 28942 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
R.K. DAL AND FOOD PRODUCTS (KATNI) PVT. LTD.
THR. ITS DIRECTOR HARISH KUMAR DODANI S/O
KHUPCHANDRA AGED 44 YEARS OCCUPATION
BUSINESSMAN R/O NEAR MADHAV NAGAR GATE
KATNI, DISTT. KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/19/2024
1:30:36 PM
2
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. THE
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KATNI
DIST.KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 28951 of 2021
BETWEEN:-
JAY KISHAN INDUSTRIES THR. ITS PROOPRIETOR
VIJAY KUMAR NAWANI S/O KISHAN CHANDRA
NAWANI A/A 50 OCCUPATION BUSINESSMAN KARINE
LANE MADHAV NAGAR GATE KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. S ECR ETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMIT I
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/19/2024
1:30:36 PM
3
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 217 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SHANKAR DAL UDYOGTHR. ITS PROPRITOR DAYAL
DAS PANJWANI S/O LATE SHRI DEWAN DAS PANJWANI
A/A 70 BUSINESSMAN R/O RAI COLONY, MADHAV
NAGAR, KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR.
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KATNI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 222 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SHANKAR DAL MILL THR. ITS PROPRITOR DAYAL DAS
PANJWANI S/O LATE SHRI DEWAN DAS PANJWANI A/A
70 OCCU. BUSINESSMAN BUSINESSMAN R/O RAI
COLONY, MADHAV NAGAR, KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR. THE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/19/2024
1:30:36 PM
4
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPT OF AGRICULATURE
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 462 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
PARASRAM MANNULAL DAL MILL PVT.LTD. THROUGH
DIRECTOR AMIT DODWANI S/O PRATAP RAI DODWANI
BUNGALOW LANE, MADHAVNAGAR KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AGRICULTURE DEPTT.
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
BOARD REGIONAL OFFICE D ISTR ICT BHOPAL
(M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. S ECR ETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI
VILLAGE KATNI (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 1664 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
ADITYA INDUSTRIES THROUGH PRORITOR MAHESH
Signature Not Verified
HINDUJA S/O LATE SHRI HARIRAM HINDUJA, AGED
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/19/2024
1:30:36 PM
5
ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESSMAN R/O
PLOT NO. 1 HINDUJA SQUARE, NEAR BARA
BUNGALOW, ROY COLONY KATNI, DISTRICT KATNI
M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B O A R D RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN BOARD
REGIONAL OFFICE, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, KATNI
MANDI SAMITI KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 2452 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SHRICHAND MOTUMAL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
RAJKUMAR SINGHANI, S/O MOTUMAL SINGHANI,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION- BUSINESSMAN
R/O KERIN LINE MADHAVNAGAR KRIPLANI NO. 42
MURWARA KATNI CEMENT FACTORY KATNI DISTRICT
KATNI (M.P) (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/19/2024
1:30:36 PM
6
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDIR SAMITI
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KATNI, (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 2454 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
S. M. INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR KAMAL
KUMAR SINGHANI, S/O MOTUMAL SINGHANI, AGED
ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION- BUSINESSMAN R/O
KERIN LINE, MADHAVNAGAR, KRIPLANI NO. 42,
MURWARA KATNI CEMENT FACTORY KATNI,
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
BOAR D , REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
WRIT PETITION No. 2701 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MAYANK PULSES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR HARISH
KUMAR BAJAJ, S/O LATE SHRI ATMA RAM KHANWANI,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, OCCUPATION- BUSINESSMAN,
R/O SHANTI NAGAR KATNI DISTRICT KATNI (M.P.)
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/19/2024
1:30:36 PM
7
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
BOAR D , REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KRISHI
UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KATNI, DISTRICT KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 2708 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
HARI OM PULSES THROUGH ITS PARTNER OM
PRAKASH MULTNI, S/O LATE BALCHAND MULTANI,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION- BUSINESSMAN
R/O SHANTI NAGAR KATNI DISTRICT KATNI M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KRISHI
UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/19/2024
1:30:36 PM
8
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
WRIT PETITION No. 12052 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SHIV PULSES THROUGH ITS PARTNER RAM CHANDRA
WADHWANI S/O SHRI DETA RAM WADHWANI AGED
ABOUT 54 YEARS OCCUPATION BUSINESSMEN
IMALIYA ROAD MADHAV NAGAR ROAD KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJAY KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 18528 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MAHLOMAL TOLARAM THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
JAI KUMAR SEWALNI S/O. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR
SEWLANI A/A 42 OCCUPATION BUSINESSMAN R/O.
SANT KAWAR RAM WARD KHAIBER LINE MADHAV
NAGAR DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/19/2024
1:30:36 PM
9
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KATNI
DISTRICT KATNI M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 19248 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
MOHIT PULSES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR AJAY
KUMAR TIRTHANI S/O SHRI UTTAM CHANDRA
TIRTHANI AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS OCCUPATION
BUSINESSMAN SANT KAWAR RAM WARD ROBERT
LINE MADHAV NAGAR KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY, KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KATNI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 19715 of 2022
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/19/2024
1:30:36 PM
10
BETWEEN:-
DHARMLOK INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
MOHAN LAL BATRA S/O LATE SHRI LOKUMAL BATRA
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS OCCUPATION BUSINESS R/O
JAGMOHAN, DAS WARD NAI BASTI KATNI DISTRICT
KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VALLABH BHAWAN,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, RAJYA KRISHI VIPRAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY, KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, KATNI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 20084 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
VISHWAS PULSES THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR MANISH
RAHRA S/O SHRI RAJKUMAR ROHRA AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS OCCU. BUSINESS R/O JAYPRAKASH WARD NAI
BASTI, KATNI, DISTRICT KATNI, DISTRIC KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/19/2024
1:30:36 PM
11
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KATNI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 20260 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
ANIL INDUSTRIES KATNI PVT. LTD. THROUGH ITS
DIRECTOR ANIL KEWLANI S/O SHRI NOTANDAS
KEWLANI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS OCCUPATION
BUSINESS ROBERT LINE MADHAV NAGAR KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENHT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN DISTRICT
BHOAPL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KATNI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
WRIT PETITION No. 20406 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAJKAMAL INDUSTTRIES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
VISHAL TIRTHANI S/ LAZMAN DAS TIRTHANI AGED
ABOUT 43 YEARS OCCUPATION BUSINESS R/O
HOUSING BOARD COLONY NEAR JAIN MANDIR
NEHRU WARD MADHAV NAGAR KATNI DISTRICT
KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/19/2024
1:30:36 PM
12
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT-
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY, KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, KATNI
DISTRICT-KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 20576 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SHIVLOK INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
ARVIND MOHNANI S/O JHAMAN DAS MOHANANI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS OCCUPATION BUSINESS HEMU
KALANI WARD, SHANTI KUNJ COLONY SHANTI NAGAR
BEHIND RAI COLONY BARAH BANGLOW MURWARA
KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN DISTRICT
BHOAPL (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KATNI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/19/2024
1:30:36 PM
13
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 22091 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SHRIDHAR INDUSTRIES KATNI PVT. LTD. THROUGH
ITS DIRECTOR ARUN SONI S/O SHRI MATHURA
PRASAD SONI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS OCCUPATION
BUSINESS MAHATMA GANDHI WARD KRIPA NIWAS
KATNI DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KATNI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 23269 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
PRIYAM PULSES S/O SHRI BRIJLAL POPTANI, AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCCUPATION: THROUGH ITS
PROPRIETOR SUNIL KUMAR (GURMUKH) POPTANI
AND BUSINESS R/O KHAIBAR LINE, MADHAV NAGAR
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/19/2024
1:30:36 PM
14
AND
1. THE STATE OFTHROUGH SECRETARY URBAN
ADMINISTRATIONAND DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. S ECR ETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 23272 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
NICE AGRO INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
MANISH KEWLANI S/O KANHAIYA LAL KEWLANI AGED
ABOUT 36 YEARS OCCUPATION BUSINESS R/O T-16,
KAIRAN LINE MADHAV NAGAR, NEAR OLD
NIRANKARI BHAWAN ACHARYA KRIPLANI WARD
NO.2, MURWARA KATNI, DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KATNI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/19/2024
1:30:36 PM
15
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 23274 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
PAWAN INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
RAJESH MURJANI S/O SATRAMDAS AGED ABOUT 48
YEARS OCCUPATION BUSINESS R/O H. NO. 584, MES
ACC COLONY MURWARA KATNI CEMENT FACTOR
MURWARA DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN, BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KATNI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 23282 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
GOVIND INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PROPRIEOTR
TAHALRAM KEWLANI S/O NANAKRAM KEWLANI
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS ARCHARYA KRIPLANI WARD
NO.42 BEHIND SINDHU BHAWAN KAIRIN LINE
MADHAV NAGAR MURWARA KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE )
AND
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/19/2024
1:30:36 PM
16
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETRY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 23285 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
B.R. DALL UDYOG THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SURESH
KUMAR RIJHWANI S/O SHRI NARAYAN DAS RIJHWANI
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS OCCUPATION BUSINESS
INDUSTRIAL AREA BARGAWAN KATNI (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETRY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(M.P.) (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 27094 of 2022
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/19/2024
1:30:36 PM
17
BETWEEN:-
JAY MATA RICE AND DAL MILLS AUDHYOGIK CELL
BARGAWAN KATNI THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
MURLIDHAR RATNANI S/O BHOJRAJ RATNANI AGED
ABOUT 55 YEARS SINDHU BHAWAN GALI HANUMAN
GANJ WARD MURWARA KATNI DISTRICT KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPNAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI KATNI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI SAMDARSHI TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2 )
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
WRIT PETITION No. 20469 of 2023
BETWEEN:-
SANJAY INDUSTRIES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
SURESH KUMAR RATNANI S/O KISHAN DAS RATNANI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS PLOT NO. 64 / 65 INDUSTRIAL
AREA KATAYA GHAT ROAD KATNI DISTRICT KATNI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI HIMANSHU MISHRA - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: AJAY KUMAR
CHATURVEDI
Signing time: 1/19/2024
1:30:36 PM
18
2. MANAGING DIRECTOR RAJYA KRISHI VIPAN
B OAR D REGIONAL OFFICE BHOPAL DISTRICT
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. SECRETARY KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, KATNI
DISTRICT KATNI (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI MANOJ KUSHWAHA - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 )
This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
A common question of law being involved in this batch of writ petitions, they were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a composite order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts adumbrated in W.P. No.27955/2021 are being taken note of.
2. The facts as detailed in the body of the petition reveal that the petitioners are traders and dealing in Dal Mill Units. The petitioners purrhased raw pulses from various traders within the State and also outside the State. Then, after processing the pulses, the said pulses were sold in the market.
3. In terms of Section 69 of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1972") exemption was there by the State Government, to the agricultural produce which is processed in the Mandi to be purchased from outside the State and brought for processing. The petitioners were then shocked to receive the impugned notice dated 21-10-2021 by which the petitioners were called upon to deposit "Nirashrit Shulk" (Destitute Fees) for the years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. Similar notices were issued to the petitioners No.2 and 3 also, which have been brought on record as Annexure-P/2 and Annexure-P/3.
4. The petitioners submitted reply to the notices vide Annexure-P/4, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/19/2024 1:30:36 PM 19 Annexure-P/5 and Annexure-P/6, however, no action on the response on the reply submitted by the petitioners was made by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioners were issued final notice dated 06-12-2021 which are contained in Annexure-P/7, Annexure-P/8, Annexure-P/8 and Annexure-P/9, whereby the petitioners were threatened that, if no amount is deposited the licences granted in favour of the petitioners would be cancelled and the amount mentioned in the impugned notice contained in Annexure-P/1, shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Thus, assailing the notice dated 06-12-2021 the instant petition is filed by the petitioners.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that in the present case, the show cause notice issued by the respondents was unsustainable, inasmuch as the show cause notice dated 21-10-2021 which is contained in Annexure-P/1 reflects that upon accounts verification for the years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16, it was found that the petitioners had not paid the "Nirashrit Fees"
(Destitute Fees). The said show cause notice having been issued beyond a period of three years, was unsustainable, in view of the provisions of Schedule 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
6. It is also contended by the learned counsel that the Legislature has framed the M.P. Nirashriton Avam Nirdhan Vyaktiyon ki Sahayata Adhiniyam, 1970 [for brevity "Act of 1970"], and in terms of the said Act, the "Nirashrit Fees" is to be recovered, so as to provide solace to destitutes and indigent persons and also for setting up homes for them. Learned counsel contends that Section 3 of the Act of 1970 provides that it is the duty of the Local Authority to implement the schemes and provide relief to destitutes. It is the further contention of the counsel that as per Section 4 of the Act of 1970, a Market Committee is required to render assistance to local authority. The Market Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/19/2024 1:30:36 PM 20 Committee which is constituted under the M.P. Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 [for short "Act of 1960"], is required to collect from the purchasers such agricultural produce at such rates, not more than 500 gms. per quintal, as the State Government may by general or special order specify it. The Collector by virtue of Section 4(2) of the Act of 1970 is empowered to pass an order regarding apportionment of twenty-five percent of the collection made by the Market Committee. The Collector is also required to apportion and deposit ten percent of the amount of collection made by a market committee into the State Destitute Fund.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that Section 5-A of the Act of 1970 stipulates that agricultural produce shall be collected at the point at which market fee levied under Section 19 of the Act of 1972 is collected and the provisions of sub-sections (1) to (4) of Section 19 of the said Act have been made applicable to the collection of agricultural produce under the Act of 1970.
8. It is thus, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in terms of Section 19 of the Act of 1972 market fee is chargeable and section 9 also contains the provision as regards the point when collection of agricultural produce is to be made. In terms of the payment of market fee, as per Section 19, assessments are made and the said assessments are subject to re-verification by the State Government in terms of Section 21 of the Act of 1972. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel that there exists statutory provision as regards limitation under which powers can be exercised, to recover the market fee, if any. It is contended by the learned counsel that assessment of fees once verified, can be re-verified within a period of two years from the date Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/19/2024 1:30:36 PM 21 of its verification by the Government.
9. The further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the petitioner was availing the exemption in terms of Section 69 of the Act of 1972, there was no liability on the petitioner to pay the "Nirashrit Shulk". The factum of exemption to the petitioner has been admitted by the respondent No.3, which is further evident from a perusal of para 15 of the return filed by the respondent No.3. It is contended by the learned counsel that according to the respondent No.3's stand only, there was exemption and as such, no fault could be attributed to the petitioner as regards non-payment of "Nirashrit Shulk".
10. It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in the present case, the Mandi is not empowered to recover duty, i.e. "Nirashrit Shulk", therefore, the notice impugned deserves to be quashed.
11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the present petitions deserve to be dismissed. It is the contention of the counsel that duty to pay tax, is statutory duty and if a trader within the meaning of the Act of 1972 is required to pay the market fee, he is under obligation to pay market fee as well as other statutory dues. Learned counsel contends that by vertue of provision contained in Section 5-A of the Act of 1970, the petitioners herein, were required to deposit "Nirashrit Shulk", however, for the aforesaid accounting years, no "Nirashrit Shulk" was deposited. The Mandi Samiti also under misconception did not charge the "Nirashrit Shulk" from the petitioners. Later on, when the said mistake was noticed the petitioners herein were issued notices. It is, therefore, contended by the learned counsel that the argument of the petitioner, that there is statutory limitation to invoke the powers of recovery of "Nirashrit Shulk" or other dues, and hence, the impugned notices are Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/19/2024 1:30:36 PM 22 unsustainable, is mosconceived.
12. It is contended by the learned counsel that the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings before the bodies, other than Courts, such as quasi-judicial tribunal or even an executive authority. It is contended by the learned counsel that the provisions of Schedule 137 of the Limitation Act, are not applicable in the present case, as the said provisions are applicable to the proceedings pertaining to the Court. In the present case, since only there is show cause notice by the Mandi Samiti in terms of the provisions of the Act of 1970, there was no prescribed limitation and the notice was rightly issued. In support of the said submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of L.S. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Fairgrowth Financial Services Ltd. and another, (2004) 11 SCC 456. Learned counsel has also placed reliance on the decision in the case of Jagdish Rai vs. The Haryana Financial Corporation, AIR 2008 Punjab and Haryana 50.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has also supported the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. However, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the validity of Section 4 of the Act of 1970 was tested by this Court and the Division Bench of this Court upheld the said provision of the said Act in the case of Sagar Anaj Avam Tilhan Vyapari Sangh and another vs. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and another, AIR 1989 MP 34 . Accordingly, the learned counsel contends that the present petitions deserve to be dismissed.
14. Heard the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties and perused the records.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/19/2024 1:30:36 PM 2315. To deal with the rival contentions raised at the Bar, it is apposite to deal with the provisions of Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Act of 1972, which are extracted hereunder :
"19. Power to levy market fee. - [(1) Every Market Committee shall levy market fee,-
(i) on the sale of notified agricultural produce whether brought from within the State or from outside the State into the market area; and
(ii) on the notified agricultural produce whether brought from within the State or from outside the State into the market areas and used for processing;
at such rates as may be fixed by the State Government from time to time subject to a minimum rate of fifty paise and a maximum of two rupees for every one hundred rupees of the price in the maimer prescribed :
Provided that no Market Committee other than the one in whose market area the notified agricultural produce is brought for sale or processing by an agriculturist or trader, as the case may be, for the first time shall levy such market fee.] (2) The market fees shall be payable by the buyer of the notified agricultural produce and shall not be deducted from the price payable to the seller :
[Provided that where the buyer of a notified agricultural produce cannot be identified, all the fees shall be payable by the person who may have sold or brought the produce for sale in the market area : Provided further that in case of commercial transaction between traders in the market area, the market fees shall be collected and paid by the seller]:
[Provided also that no fees shall be levied upto 31st March, 1990 on such agricultural produce as may be specified by the State Government by notification in this behalf if such produce has been sold outside the market yard or sub-market yard by an agriculturist to a co-operative society of which he is a member :] [Provided also that for the agricultural produce brought in the market area for commercial transaction Or for processing the market fee shall be deposited by the buyer or processor as the case may be, in the Market Committee office within [fourteen days] if the buyer or processor has not submitted the permit issued under sub-section (6) of Section 19.] Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/19/2024 1:30:36 PM 24 [(3) The market fees referred to in sub-section (1) shall not be levied on any notified agricultural produce,-
(i) in more than one market area, in the State; or
(ii) more than once in the same market area; if it is re-sold,-
(a) in the case of (i) in the market other than the one in which it was brought for sale or bought or sold by an agriculturist or trader, as the case may be, for the first time and has suffered fee therein; or
(b) in the case of (ii), in the same market area;
in the course of commercial transactions between the traders or to consumers [subject to furnishing of information in such form as may be prescribed in the bye-laws by the person concerned to the effect] that the notified agricultural produce being so re-sold has already suffered fee in the other market area of the State.] [(4) If any notified agricultural produce is found to have been processed, re-sold or sold out of yard without payment of market fee payable on such produce the market fee shall be levied and recovered on five times the market value of the processed produce or value of the agricultural produce as the case may be.] (5) The market functionaries, as the Market Committee may by bye- laws specify, shall maintain account relating to sale and purchase [or processing] in such forms and submit to the Market Committee such periodical returns as may be prescribed.
[(6) No notified agricultural produce shall be removed out of the market yard, market proper or the market area as the case may be, except in accordance with a permit issued by the Market Committee, in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed by the bye-laws :
Provided that if any person removes or transports the processed product of notified agricultural produce from the market yard, market proper or the market area, as the case may be, such person shall carry with him the bill or cash memorandum issued under Section 43 of the Madhya Pradesh Vaniiyik Kar Adhiniyam, 1994 (No. 5 of 1995).] (7) The Market Committee may levy and collect entrance fee on vehicles, plying on hire, which may enter into market yard at such rate as may be specified in the bye-laws.
19A. [x x x] [19B. Default in payment of market fee. - (1) Any person liable to pay market fee under this Act shall pay the same to the Market Committee within Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/19/2024 1:30:36 PM 25 fourteen days of the purchase of the notified agricultural produce or its import into the market area for processing and in default he shall be liable to pay the market fee together with the interest at the rate of twenty four percent per annum.
(2) If the person liable to pay the market fee and the interest under sub- section (1) fails to pay the same within one month, such person shall not be allowed to enter into further transactions in that market area or any other market area and the market fee with interest shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and the licence of such person shall be liable to be cancelled.]
20. Power to order production of accounts and powers of entry, inspection and seizure. - (1) [The Secretary of the Market Committee or any officer or servant of the State Government or the Board] empowered by the State Government in this behalf, may, for purposes of this Act, require any person carrying on business in any kind of notified agricultural produce to produce before him the accounts and other documents and to furnish any information relating to the stocks of such agricultural produce, or purchase, sale and delivery of such agricultural produce by such person and also to furnish any other information relating to payment of the market fees by such person.
(2) All accounts and registers maintained by any person in the ordinary course of business in any notified agricultural produce and documents relating to the stocks of such agricultural produce or purchases, sales and deliveries of such agricultural produce in his possession and the offices, establishments, godowns, vessels or vehicles of such person shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by such officers and servants of the Board or the Market Committee as may be authorised by the State Government in this behalf.
(3) If any such officer or servant has reason to suspect that any person is attempting to evade the payment of any market fee due from him under Section 19 or that any person has purchased any notified agricultural produce in contravention of any of the provisions of this Act or the rules, or the bye-laws in force in the market areas, he may for reasons to be recorded in writing, seize such accounts, registers or documents of such person as may be necessary, and shall grant a receipt for the same and shall retain the same only so long as may be necessary for examination thereof or for a prosecution.
(4) For purposes of sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) such officer or servant may enter or search any place of business, warehouse, office, establishment, godown, vessel or vehicle where such officer or servant has reason to believe that such person keeps or for the time being kept accounts, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/19/2024 1:30:36 PM 26 registers or documents of his business, or stock of notified agricultural produce relating to his business.
(5) The provisions of Sections 102 and 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No. II of 1974), shall, so far as may be, apply to a search under sub-section (4).
(6) Where any books of account or other documents are seized from any place and there are entries therein making reference to quantity, quotations, rates, receipt or payment of money or sale or purchase of goods, such books of account or other documents shall be admitted in evidence without witness having to appear to prove the same, and such entries shall be prima facie evidence of matters, transactions and accounts purported to be therein recorded.
21. Best judgment assessment of fee. - (1) Every Trader, Processor or Commission Agent carrying on business of notified agricultural produce shall before the 30th April, every year submit to the Secretary a statement of purchase or sale of notified agricultural produce by or through him, in the prescribed manner, during the previous financial year ending on the 31st March.
(2) Any person aggrieved by the proceeding of the Secretary, may within 30 days from the date of communication of notice to him, appeal to the Market Committee.
(3) The State Government or any officer authorised by the State Government or the Board may, on its or his own motion or on an application made to the State Government [re-verify, the statement verified by the Secretary, within two years from the date of verification] and for this purpose such officer shall exercise the powers under Section 20.
(4) If any person required to produce accounts or furnish information under sub-section (1) of Section 20 fails to produce such accounts or to furnish information or knowingly furnishes incomplete or incorrect accounts or information or has not maintained proper accounts of the purchases, sales and delivery of the notified agricultural produce, the Secretary shall in the prescribed manner assess such person for fees levied under Section 19.
(5) The re-verification of re-assessment made by the officers of the State Government or the Board empowered shall be final.]"
16. A bare perusal of Section 19 of the Act of 1972 reflects that every Market Committee is empowered to levy market fee on the traders as regards Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/19/2024 1:30:36 PM 27 the notified agricultural produce which is brought from within the State or from outside the State, into the market area. Thereafore, as per Section 19 of the Act of 1972, market fee is to be levied by the Market Committee. Section 20 of the Act of 1972 provides for powers with the Secretary of the Market Committee or with any officer or servant of the State Government to order production of accounts and also contains the provisions for entry, inspection and seizure. As per Section 20, for the purposes of the Act of 1972, the aforesaid Authority can direct any person who is carrying on the business in any kind of notified agricultural produce to produce before the such Authority the accounts and the other documents.
17. Section 21 of the Act of 1972 provides that every trader, processor, manufacture or commission agent who is carrying on busiess of notified agricultural produce, shall before the 30th April of every year, submit to the Secretary, a statement of purchase of sale of notified agricultural produce by or through him, in the prescribed manner, during the previous financial year ending on the 31st March. Such details are submitted with the Secretary for the purposes of verification and a person who is aggrieved by the proceedings of the Secretary, can appeal to the Market Committee.
18. Section 21(3) of the Act of 1972 has direct bearing on the case in hand, and the same provides that the State Government or any officer authorized by the State Government or the Board may, on its or his own motion or on an application made to the State Government, reverify the statement verified by the Secretary, within two years from the date of verification, and for this purpose such officer shall exercise the powers under Section 20. It is further relevant to mention at this juncture that re-verification of a re-assessment made by the officers of the State Government or the Board empowered, shall Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/19/2024 1:30:36 PM 28 be final.
19. Thus, a composite reading of sections 19,20 and 21 makes it clear that, a trader is required to submit the entire statement pertaining to the transaction of purchase or sale of the notified agricultural produce during the previous financial ending on 31st March. Accordingly, the such statement is verified by the Secretary. It is further important that such verification of the Secretary, is subject to re-verification by the State Government, but such re- verification by the State Government is permissible, within a period of two years from the date of verification by the Secretary.
20. In the present case, a perusal of the show cause notice contained in Annexure-P/1, dated 21-10-2021 reveals that show cause notices have been issued to the petitioners pertaining to the years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16. It is further important to take into consideration at this juncture, that the present petitioners were enjoying exemption in terms of Section 69 of the Act of 1972, which is further evident from a perusl of para 8 of the return filed by the respondent No.2.
21. The return filed by the respondent No.3 also contains some important averments which are necessary for adjudication of the instant matter. In para 15 of the return of the respondent No.3 the following assertions have been made :
"15. That, it is submitted that when the authority came to know that due to some misconception the Nirashrit Shulk is not being taken by the Mandi Samiti then the Additional Director issued a letter to the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Katni on 18-02-2019 which clearly says that due to mistake of Mandi Samiti the Nirashrit Shulk has not been charged. In the aforesaid letter, it was observed that on presumption that the Nirashrit Shulk has been exempted the Mandi Samiti has not charged the Nirashrit Shulk but later on the aforesaid mistake was rectified. A copy of the letter dated 14-02-2019 is filed herewith as Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/19/2024 1:30:36 PM 29 Annexure-R/1."
22. A perusal of para 15 of the return filed by the respondent No.3 reveals that the Market Committee (Mandi Samiti) admitted that, it was their mistake that the "Nirashrit Shulk" was not charged under a presumption that payment of the "Nirashrit Shulk" was exempted and the said mistake was sought to be rectified by the respondent. In support of the said contention, reliance is placed on the letter dated 14-02-2019 which has been filed as Annexure-R/1 with the return. A perusal of the letter dated 14-02-20219 reveals that the M.P. Agricultural Marketing Board issued the said letter and directed the Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti to recover the "Nirashrit Shulk" as well, from the traders.
23. Thus, a total consideration of the rival stand of the parties firstly reveal that in the present case, for each financial year, the statements, if were submitted by the petitioners, the said statements were to be verified by the Secretary in terms of Section 21 of the Act of 1972. From the date of verification of the statement made by the Secretary, the State Government could have re-verified the statement within the period of two years from the date of verification by the Secretary.
24. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Act of 1970, it is also evident that the same is a welfare Legislation, has been enacted to provide solace/relief to the destitutes. The "Local Authority" has been defined under Section 2(d) of the Act of 1970 which includes a municipal corporation, municipal council, notified area committee or gram panchayat. Section 4 of the Act of 1970 contains a provision that the Market Committee which is constituted under the M.P. Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, is required Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/19/2024 1:30:36 PM 30 to provide assistance to the Local Authority.
25. Thus, the Legislature has made provisions for providing assistance to Local Authority by the Marketing Committee, so as to implement the provision of the Act of 1970. Therefore, the collection of the specified agricultural produce at specific rate, has been deatailed in Section 5-A of the Act of 1970. Section 5-A of the Act of 1970 stipulates point at which collections are required to be made.
26. It is further important to take into consideration the provisions of Section 5-B of the Act of 1970 which provides that the collection under section 4 or section 5 may be made in kind or cash, and the same provides that the Market Committee or the local authority may, at the option of the purchaser of the specified agricultural produce, collect the agricultural produce under clause
(ii) of sub-section (1) or section 4 or section 5 of the Act of 1970. Section 5-C puts a restriction upon a person not to transport specified agricultural produce, unless such quantity of such specified afgricultural produce at the specified rate is given towards the collection. Thus, as per provisions of Act of 1970, a trader is either required to give agricultural produce or required to pay cash, in lieu of the produce so that the same can be utilised for the destitutes.
27. Section 5-D of the Act of 1970 further provides that if there is failure by the person to contribute towards the collections in terms of Section 4 by the Market Committee or by the local authority under Section 5, the Collector on a complaint made by the Committee recovers the amount as arrears of land revenue. Then the Collector may proceed firther, in terms of Section 5-E of the Act of 1972.
28. Thus, a conjoint reading of the provisions of the Act of 1970 as well as the Act of 1972, reveals that special provisions contained in the Act of 1970, Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/19/2024 1:30:36 PM 31 are to be implemented with the help of the Market Committee and the Market Committee is required to provide assistance to the Local Authority. The Market Committee itself can recover the agricultural produce in the form of kind or cash in terms of Section 4 and the Local Authority can also collect the agricultural produce in terms of Section 5 of the Act of 1970.
29. In the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions, if the facts of the present case are analysed, it would reveal that in the present case firstly, the Market Committee (Mandi Samiti) was required to ascertain as to when, the verification of the statement was carried out by its Secretary, as regards the total transaction pertaining to the notified agricultural produce in the relevant years. Only upon its verification, an action should have been taken by the Market Committee (Mandi Samiti) in terms of Sections 4 and 5-B of the Act of 1970.
30. It is evident that no "Mandi Shulk" or agricultural produce in lieu thereof, were collected at the time, when the aforesaid produce were transacted. Even later on, in terms of Section 5-B of the Act of 1970, no efforts were made by the Market Committee or by the Local Authority, to collect the agricultural produce in the form of cash or kind. It is also evident that, no notice to the present petitioners under Section 5-D of the Act of 1970 was given. The notice contained in Annexure-P/1 cannot be treated as notice, which is required to be issued in terms of Section 5-D of the Act of 1970.
31. In the present case, the Market Committee also, even if was of the opinion, could not have issued any notice for recovery and was only empowered to make a complaint to the Collector in terms of Section 5-D of the Act of 1970, then the issue of recovery of arrears, as arrears of land revenue was required to be taken by the Collector. But in the present case, there is no Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/19/2024 1:30:36 PM 32 document on record to demonstrate that any of the action stipulated in Sections 4, 5-A, 5-B and 5-D of the Act of 1970 has been taken by the Market Committee.
32. It is further evident from a perusal of para 15 of the return filed by the respondent No.3, that under misconception, they proceeded on assumption that there was exemption from payment of "Nirashrit Shulk" also. Therefore, in the considered view of this Court, so far as the provisions of Act of 1970 are concerned, the Market Committee could not have issued the impugned notices to the petitioners. It is needless to emphasize, that in the present case, the recovery does not pertain to the market fee in terms of Section 19 of the Act of 1972, on the contrary, the same pertains to recovery of "Nirashrit Shulk" within the parameter of the Special Act of 1970.
33. In absence of any power to recover the "Nirashrit Shulk" the Market Committee could not have issued notice for recovery to the petitioners. Therefore, in the present case, the important issue which is required to be reconsidered by the State Government, is as to whether any notice to the present petitioners could have been issued by the Market Committee (Mandi Samiti), after verification of the statment by its Secretary, inasmuch as the said verification by the Secretary can be re-verified by the State Government within a period of two years from the date of its verification only. The said important issue, in the considered view of this Court, is required to be mulled over by the State Goverment, inasmuch as the State is the guardian of not only of the Market Committee but also the Local Authority, to whom duties have been assigned under the Act of 1970. Judgments relied upon by the respondents are distinguishable on facts.
34. Resultantly, the impugned notice dated 06-12-2021 contained in Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/19/2024 1:30:36 PM 33 Annexure-P/9, is set aside and the matter is referred to the State Government, i.e. the respondent No.1 with the following directions :
(i) The State Government shall first ascertain the dates on which statements, if any, in terms of Section 21 of the Act of 1972 were submitted by the petitioners and on which dates such statements were verified by the Secretary of the Market Committee.
(ii) The State Government then shall consider the aspect, as to whether verification of the statement of accounts, after lapse of 5-6 years, is permissible, inasmuch as the recovery pertains to the statement of accounts verification years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.
(iii) The State Government shall also consider the issue as to whether the reverification of the such statement of accounts, if verified earlier, is permissible after erxpiry of two years from the date of its verification by the Secretary, Market Committee in view of Section 21(3) of the Act of 1972.
(iv) After dealing with the aforesaid issue, the State Government shall take final decision in accordance with law, which shall be communicated to the petitioners, within a period of fifteen days from the date when such decision is so taken.
(v) Let the decision in terms of the order be taken within ninety days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Before taking any decision, opportunity of being heard be afforded to the petitioners.
34. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/19/2024 1:30:36 PM 34 hereinabove.
(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE ac Signature Not Verified Signed by: AJAY KUMAR CHATURVEDI Signing time: 1/19/2024 1:30:36 PM