CENTURY PULP AND PAPER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this bunch of writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of an amendment in the Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2011 (from herein after referred to as "the Act") by which now a "Mandi fee" or a "Market Fee" as well as "Development cess" is liable to be paid on agricultural produces which are brought for the first time in the market area, inter alia, for the purposes of "manufacturing". The concerned Amendment is Act No. 04 of 2013. This challenge is on a number of grounds, which will be dealt with in a while, but as of now a brief history of the case would be in order. Market legislation was enacted in almost all the States in the country, with the purposes that the farmers should get a good return for their agricultural produce in the market and better facilities be provided to the farmers who bring their produce in the market, and that they may not be exploited by middlemen. It was a farmer friendly Legislation. At the time when the State of Uttarakhand was the part of the State of U.P., the law which was in force was known as "U.P. Krishi Utpadan Adhiniyam, 1964". Later on, when the new State of Uttarakhand was carved out of the State of U.P. and came into existence on 9th November, 2000, by an Act of Parliament (U.P. Reorganization Act), and consequently the State of Uttarakhand enacted its own legislation known as "the Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2011". In the new legislation of Uttarakhand, there was a new provision added to Section 27 of the Act, namely Sub -section (c)(iii), which reads as under:

(2.) BY the aforesaid legislation, if an agricultural produce is brought in the market area "for the first time", inter alia, "for sale, storage, processing or transaction" a "Market fee" and "Development cess" was liable to be given on such agriculture produce to the Mandi Samiti.

(3.) THE first contention was negated by this Court (on legislative competence), but as far as the second contention was concerned, this Court was of the opinion that in majority of the cases, which were there before this Court, the agricultural produce was being brought for "manufacturing" and since the word "manufacture" was not there in the charging Section 27(c)(iii) of the Act, no "Mandi Fee" or "Market Fee", was liable to be paid on such "agricultural produce".