KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI Vs. PAGIA ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two Appeals, preferred under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are directed against the judgment and decree, dated 24-7-2001 and 25-7-2001, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nainital, in Civil Suit No. 115 of 1998 and Civil Suit No. 114 of 1998, respectively.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiffs (present respondents) instituted the aforementioned suits, with the pleading that the plaintiffs are the licensed dealer of seeds. They are registered under U.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers Order, 1989. They have also alleged that Mandi fee under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, can be levied only on the agricultural produce and not on the seeds, as the seeds do not come under the definition of agricultural produces as these undergo certain chemical processes. It is also alleged that Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 13795 of 1988 has held on 31-8-1988, that the seeds are not covered under the definition of agricultural produce. On the aforesaid ground, the plaintiffs (respondents) have challenged the imposed fee, by filing the aforesaid suits. Demand notices of defendant (appellant), for realizing the Mandi fee on the aforesaid seeds, has been questioned and an injunction has been sought not to recover the Mandi fee, as mentioned in the impugned demand notices. The defendant (appellant), contested the suits before the Trial Court and filed the written statements in which it has been stated that it is only the processed seeds which are exempted from the Mandi fee. Admitting the principle of law held in Writ Petition No. 13795 of 1988 by the Allahabad High Court, it is pleaded by the defendant (appellant) that the Supreme Court while dismissing the leave to appeal, against said order dated 31-8-1988 of the Allahabad High Court, clarified that the unprocessed seeds, cannot be kept under the category of the processed seeds. The Mandi Samiti, in their written statement, alleged that it is only the unprocessed seeds, on which the Mandi fee has been levied. It is also pleaded that since the plaintiffs failed to file a revision against the demand notices, as provided under Section 25 of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Samiti Adhiniyam, 1964, as such the suits are not maintainable. Learned Trial Court, framed the necessary issues, arising out of the pleadings and came to the conclusion that the seeds in which the plaintiffs deal are not subject matter of levy under the aforesaid Act of 1964 and accordingly decreed the suits for injunction, directing the defendant, not to realize Mandi fee, as mentioned in the demand notices in question. Aggrieved by said judgments and decrees, passed in Civil Suit No. 114 of 1998 and Civil Suit No. 115 of 1998, these two appeals have been filed by the defendants.

(3.) We heard learned Counsel for he parties and perused the entire record.