IDAR TALUKA CO OPERATIVE AGRICULTUR PRODUCE PROCESS AND SALE SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. AGRICULTUR PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 is a registered co-operative society and the petitioner No. 2 is its Chairman. The members of the petitioner-society are the agriculturalists of the Idar taluka. The petitioners in this petition has made a challenge to the action of the respondents, its agents and/or servants from demanding and recovering the market fees from the petitioner society on sale of its ginned cotton or unginned cotton in the market on behalf of its members and to refund the amount which the respondent has illegally recovered. The amount sought to be recovered from the petitioner-society for the year 1981-82, 1982-83 and 1983-84 has been given in Annexure-B to the petition. The petitioner's contention is that the market fee is not leviable on the sale of ginned and unginned cotton as it is the property of the members of the society and the sale is made on behalf of its members.

(2.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that, this petition is not maintainable as the petitioners' have an alternate remedy provided under Sec. 48 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1963. It has next been contended that the market fees is leviable by the respondent on the sale effected by the petitioners on the ginned and unginned cotton. Replying to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the question of availability of an alternative remedy has not been raised by the respondent in reply to the special civil application and as such this plea cannot be permitted to be raised. It has next been contended that this writ petition has been admitted and after so many years, the petitioners may not be relegated to the remedy of revision as provided under Sec. 48 of the Act aforesaid. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Sec. 48 of the Act, reads as under : Section 48 : "Powers to State Government to call for proceedings of market committee and to pass order thereon. The State Government may at any time call for and examine the proceedings of the Director or of any market committee for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by the Director or the market committees. In any case in which it appears to the State Government that any decision or order or proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled or reversed, the State Government may pass such order thereon as it thinks fit."

(3.) The petitioners have come up with the grievance that it was not within the competence of the respondent to demand and recover the market fees from them on the agricultural produce i.e. ginned and unginned cotton. So against the action of collecting the levy of the market fees on the sales which are effected by the petitioners of the agricultural produce i.e. ginned and unginned cotton, the proper course for the petitioners was to approach the State Government in the matter. The State Government has sufficiently wide power in this matter. The learned counsel for the petitioneres states that it is purely a legal question and as such the petitioners may not be relegated to the remedy of revision. This contention is devoid of any substance. The revisional authority can go into the question of fact as well as law and the remedy of the revision is an effective remedy provided under the statute itself. It is the case of the respondent that under the Act, the levy of tax on the sales of the ginned and unginned cotton by it, cannot be challenged directly in writ petition and for such a grievance the petitioners have been provided with an alternative remedy. The petitioners have filed this petition in the year 1986 and, admittedly, the petitioners were paying and the respondent were recovering market fees on agricultural produce, as aforesaid, since 1981-82. For all these years, the petitioners were paying the market fees and at no stage earlier to the filing of this petition had made any grievance. In such cases, where the petitioner have not raised objections against the demand and recovery of the market fees from them on the sales of agricultural produce i.e. ginned and unginned cotton, the proper and appropriate course for them is to approach the revisional authority under Sec. 48 of the Act. It is true that merely because the petitioners have not raised any word against the demand and recovery of the tax, they are not debarred from raising this issue, but the question is only of the forum. In a case where the petitioner has an alternate remedy available under the statute for the adjudication and resolving of the grievances made by them then the petitioners should have availed of that remedy. In such cases, this court should discourage such tendency of the litigants to approach directly to this court in such matter where alternate remedy is provided to them. The litigants should first avail the alternate remedy provided to them and only when the ultimate decision comes against them, there may be a justification to approach this Court. It is true that this petition is admitted in the year 1986. It is, however, equally true that for all these years, the petitioners are paying the market fees to the respondents. It is now only the question of adjudication on the plea of the petitioners whether the market fees is levaible on the sale made by them on the ginned and unginned cotton in the market yard of the respondents or not. For that the only remedy available to them is to approach the State Government under Sec. 48 of the Act and not to this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. This petition has been admitted ex-parte and now it has come up for final hearing.