BHAGWAN DASS SOOD Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated November 30, 1994 passed by the Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 39 of 1989. The said writ petition was heard along with other writ petitions including civil Writ Petition No. 568 of 1988 (M/s. Sardar and Sons v. State of Himachal Pradesh) involving common question of law and all the said writ petitions were disposed of by the judgment rendered in C. W. P. No 568 of 1988.

(2.) The main contention raised before the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the said petitions was that the Writ Petitioners were not required to take licences under Section 4(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as Markets Act) and are also not required to pay market levy. The petitioners contended that the market committee had established principal/sub- market yards within the territorial jurisdiction of the market committee. But the petitioners did not carry on their business within the principal market or market yards/ sub-market yards. On the contrary, they had been dealing with agricultural produce out side the principal market/yard or sub-yards. They had been carrying on their business in their own premises which were though within the notified market area, but were outside the principal market/market yard or sub-market yards. Even then, the market committees were insisting the petitioners to obtain licence and pay market fee in accordance with the provisions of the Markets Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Such action on the part of the market committee was wholly illegal and unconstitutional. It appears from the impugned decision of the High Court that the petitioners contention was that the provisions relating to taking of licences for carrying on business and payment of market fee under the Markets Act have placed unreasonable restrictions on their right to carry on their trade and hence Sections 4(3) and 21 of the Markets Act are violative of Article 19 (i) (g) of the Constitution of India. It was contended that market fee had a direct relationship with the services rendered and since the market committee rendered no service in respect of the area in which the petitioners had carried on their trading activities but the services rendered by the market committee remained confined only to principal market/ market or sub-market yard established by the market committee, realisation of market fee was illegal and unconstitutional.

(3.) Such contentions were disputed by respondents by contending that principal market yards and sub market yards had been identified and constructions had been undertaken. According to respondents, such market and market and sub-market yards, would consist of shops, auction platforms and various public utility services like provision for drinking water, latrines sanitation, farmers rest houses etc. would be provided. Such scheme would costs expenditure of several crores of rupees by each of the market committee. Though the works were in process, works of such magnitude involving very heavy expenditure could not be immediately implemented in full and the works in progress would require some more time to be completed. The respondents contended that even in respect of areas outside principal market and market or sub-market yards inspecting staff had been appointed to ensure proper weighment and payment of price to the producers of scheduled agricultural produce. It was also contended that income to be derived from market fee would be spent for providing the aforesaid facilities and amenities. Hence, there was sufficient nexus justifying imposition of levy and collection of the same.