KANTIBHAI VIRCHANDBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short facts of the case appear to be that the market yard in question was constructed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Patan (hereinafter referred to as 'the Committee' for short) for traders, including the vegetable merchants. It was insisted by the Market committee to the traders to shift their business to the market yard as the stalls were available. However, the same was resisted. Thereafter, the Market Committee also undertook the process for allotment of the stalls to the traders in the year 1996, but it appears that there was resistance to shift their business to the market yard. Ultimately on 18.5.1996, in a joint meeting of the Market Committee, Traders and the Deputy Director, it was agreed to allot the shops on development charge of Rs.41,000/- and the monthly rent was fixed for Rs.200/-. Six traders agreed for the same. The essential purpose of the market committee was to see that the market yard functions smoothly and was to get regular income of market fees. Thereafter, the market committee fixed the upset price of Rs.1,25,000/- and published advertisement in the newspaper Hamlok on 5.4.2007, but there was no response and nobody came forward for purchase of the plots and the matter remained as it was. It appears that thereafter, the traders made application to the market committee to allot the shops on payment of Rs.31,000/- as development fee and the matter was deliberated and ultimately, it was agreed to allot stalls for Rs.41,000/- for the development fees and the monthly rent was fixed of Rs.200/- in the resolution passed by the market committee on 2.11.1999. Accordingly, 74 persons were allotted plots, and they paid the development fees and they were paying the rent also. On 29.7.2000 the Director of Agricultural Market Committee for Rural Finance issued instructions to the market committee to recover additional amount of Rs.22,335/- from each of the allottee comprising of the group of 74 persons and further directed to recover monthly rent of Rs.650/- from those persons without giving any opportunity of hearing to the allottees. The petitioners herein carried the matter in revision before the State Government under Section 48 of Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against the said instructions of the Director and the State Government found that the opportunity of hearing was not given, therefore, the matter was remanded back to the Director. It appears that thereafter the Director, Agricultural Marketing, once again passed the order, whereby the direction to recover the additional amount and monthly rent of Rs.650/- was maintained. The petitioners further carried the matter in revision before the State Government. The State Government in the revision found that, based on the report of the engineer towards construction cost of Rs.63,335/- and for monthly rent of Rs.650/-, the Director has exercised the power, therefore, the State Government did not interfere with the instructions issued by the Director and dismissed the revision vide order dated 13.2.2004. It is under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court by the present revision.

(2.) Heard Mr.Mehul Sharad Shah, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Raval, learned AGP for the State Authorities and Mr.Rana, learned Counsel for Mr.Jhaveri for respondent No.3 Market Committee.

(3.) As such the matter is pertaining to the recovery of the cost of construction by the Market Committee by way of development fee. It appears from the report of the Engineer that the cost assessed was of Rs.63,335/-. It is true that such report is not produced by either side of the petition, but there is reference to the said report. Report of the approved Engineer could be said as a report of an expert on the aspects of cost structure. If the Director or the State Government have acted upon such report, so as to compel the Market Committee to recover the cost of the shops/stalls by way of development fees, at the time of allotment to the traders, such exercise of the power cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contended that the copy of the report was not supplied and no material is produced in the present record as to the basis for arriving at the figure of Rs.63,335/-. In such situation, the matter could have been referred to some other Governmental authority for arriving at the figure of cost structure by the Market Committee.