SOUTHERN TEXTILES LTD Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these two writ petitions, the petitioners have sought for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from levying and demanding any market fee in respect of cotton, which has been stored without processing in the petitioners' mills for more than 30 days, or, in respect of the rejected cotton and returned to the Up-country cotton seller. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the Textiles Commissioner, under the provisions of the Cotton Control Order, 1986, has permitted the petitioners to store cotton for over a period of 30 days. Therefore, the storing of cotton beyond the period of 30 days, under the order issued by the Textiles Commissioner, does not come within the proviso to S.24(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). We have already held in our judgment in the case in W.P. No. 2429 of 1991 etc. (Rajapalaym Paruthi Panju Sangam v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu dated 28-4-1994 that the provisions contained in S. 24(1) of the Act, as to the presumption arising out of the retention of the goods for over a period of 30 days, is a rebuttable presumption. Therefore, it is open to the petitioners to prove that the cotton was stored pursuant to the order of the Textile Commissioner beyond the period of 30 days and as such, it cannot be deemed to be a sale so as to attract the levy of market fee. That being so, the relief, as sought for, cannot be granted, except to clarifying that in such a case, the market fee cannot straightway be demanded without affording an opportunity to the persons concerned to rebut the presumption.

(2.) THE second prayer made in the petition relates to levy of market fee on transporting the rejected cotton when it is being transported by the purchaser to the seller. As the market fee is leviable only when the sale and purchase of the notified agricultural produce takes place within the market area, it is open to the petitioners to show that what is being transported is not the agricultural produce purchased in the market area, but the one purchased outside the State and it is being returned to the seller as rejected. In such an event, the transporting of such rejected cotton to the seller cannot at all be prevented, or obstructed on the ground that market fee is payable. Accordingly, we dispose of these writ petitions in the following terms: