RAJ NARAYAN AGARWAL Vs. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

(2.) The Petitioner by means of this Writ Petition has sought for quashing the orders dated 24-7-1992 passed by Respondent No. 1 (Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition) and dated 10-3-1992 (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition) as well as for quashing the recovery proceedings initiated in pursuance of the order dated 24-6-1992.

(3.) The main ground of attack by the Petitioner is that since the transaction in question has been done outside the Mandi Samiti, the Petitioner is not liable to pay any market fee. Earlier the Petitioner had filed a Writ Petition in this Court in which a direction was issued to Respondent-authorities wherein the said petition was- finally disposed of with a direction to comply with certain conditions mentioned therein for the purposes of disposal of certain objections raised by the Petitioner. According to the said decision, one of the conditions was that the Petitioner will file a statement before the Mandi Samiti within four months in the case of Gur and Khandssri indicating therein whether the said goods are sold by the Commission Agent or by the Petitioner- himself inside or out side the Mandi and in case the Petitioner does not file the said statement, the Mandi Samiti shall issue notice/Letter to the Petitioner after expiry of four months to file a statement, within ten days of the receipt of the notice and thereafter they shall pass appropriate orders relating to fee. The order further mentions as one or the conditions that in case the return of the Petitioner is found to be incorrect or in case he fails to file a return despite notice/letter by the Mandi Samiti, then the Mandi Samiti shall levy market fee on the Petitioner on the aforesaid goods. In pursuance of the same, according to the learned Counsel for the Respondents, the Petitioner did not submit the same as directed by the Court. In fact, on 10-2-92 (Annexure-4 to the petition) a notice/letter was given to the Petitioner which specifically mentioned that the Petitioner did not file within the time the evidence of sale and forms which was required for the purpose of giving exemption, if at all the Petitioner is entitled. In fact, Annexure-7 to the petition is the impugned order in pursuance of which the recovery is being proceeded. Since Petitioner failed to tender evidence within the time aforesaid, the Respondent-Authority assessed the transaction in question as market fee which is subject-matter of challenge before us.