Roshan
Lal Vs. Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad [1993] INSC 350 (13 September 1993)
Ramaswamy,
K. Ramaswamy, K. Singh N.P. (J)
CITATION:
1994 SCC Supl. (2) 589
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
ORDER
1.
Leave granted.
2. The
appellant is owning a rice mill at Bilaspur. The mill and the yard are situated
in the territorial area of two market committees, namely, Bilaspur Mandi Samiti
and Rudrapur Mandi Samiti. In the counter-affidavits filed by the Market
Committee, Rudrapur, it is stated that the appellant has been purchasing paddy
from the ryots or commission agents within the notified area of the Market
Committee, Rudrapur and bringing to the mill situated in the notified area of
the Market Committee, Bilaspur. It is the contention of the appellant that he
has been paying the market fee to the Marketing Committee, Rudrapur for the
paddy and therefore the Market Committee, Bilaspur cannot levy any market fee
on the paddy. Section 17(iii)(b) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam,
1964 (for short the Act) provides thus:
"The
market committee shall, for the purpose of this Act have the power to levy and
collect- (b)market fee, which shall be payable on transactions of sale of
specified agricultural produce in the market area at such rates, being not less
than one per centum and not more than one and half per centum of the price of
the agricultural produce so sold, as the State Government may specify by
notification, and such fee shall be realised in the manner specified
therein." 3.There is also a deeming provision that if an agricultural
produce had been brought and converted into another notified agricultural
produce, it must be deemed to have been purchased within the notified area of
conversion.
In
view of the fact that the appellant has been purchasing paddy from the notified
area of Market Committee, Rudrapur, the transaction of purchase and sale of the
paddy is complete within the notified area of the Market Committee, Rudrapur.
Thereby he is liable 'Lo pay the market fee on paddy to Market Committee, Rudrapur
at the rate specified therein. Equally, when he brought the paddy and converted
it into rice within the notified area of the Market Committee, Bilaspur, the
rice being an independent notified agricultural produce and when the sale takes
place within that notified area, he is liable to pay the market fee on the rice
as well to the Market Committee, Bilaspur since it has taken place in a
different notified market area, Bilaspur. It is stated in the counter-affidavit
of the Market Committee, Bilaspur that 68% of the paddy is taken to have been
husked as rice out of the total quantity of 100% paddy purchased by the
appellant for the purpose of levy of market fee on rice. In other words out of
100 quintals of paddy dehusked, 68 quintals of rice is the new notified product
i.e. rice which is exigible to market fee. This percentage is perfectly
reasonable. The appellant is liable to pay market fee on rice when the rice was
sold within the notified market area of Bilaspur. The Market Committee, Bilaspur
would work out the total market fee payable by the appellant on the returns
submitted by the appellant and thereon the appellant shall pay the appropriate
market fee on rice within a period of four weeks from the date of the receipt
of the demand. The notice of demand dated February 19, 1991 stands suspended till that date.
4.The
appeal is accordingly disposed of with the above clarifications. No costs.
Back
