KRISHI UTPADAN MANDL SAMITI AGRA Vs. CHUNNI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.12.1999 passed by Sri B.D. Upadhyay, the learned XIIth Additional District Judge, Agra in Civil Appeal No. 297 of 1998 allowing the appeal arising out of Judgment and decree passed by IVth Additional Civil judge (Sr. Division), Agra dated 3.8.1998 in Original Suit No. 488 of 1991 dismissing the suit of the respondents.

(2.) The respondent No. 1, (hereinafter, called the plaintiff) representing himself as President of Moti Ganj Khadya Vyapar Samiti, Moti Ganj, Agra filed Suit No. 488 of 1991 against the appellant and State of U. P., respondent No. 2, (hereinafter called defendants) for permanent injunction restraining the defendant Mandi Samiti from interfering in the business of Samiti and from doing business by its members at Moti Ganj. Agra, so far as dal, rice, khandsari and gur were concerned, which were products of factory and not purchased from the farmers and from not realising any charges or taxes from them. The case of the plaintiff set up in the plaint, briefly stated, was that the plaintiff is President of Moti Ganj Khadya Vyapar Samiti Motiganj. Agra and the members of the society were doing business in foodgrains like dal, rice, khandsari and gur and were paying taxes/charges under U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, 1964. The Mandi Samiti was authorised to realise taxes, etc. on the agricultural products, which were brought by agriculturists for sale. Rice is produced in Rice Mill, dal is prepared in Dal Mill and gur is also prepared in Mills, which were purchased by members of plaintiff, society from the millers. Therefore, above products were not agricultural products. The State Government issued notification dated 15.10.1981 directing that the wholesale transaction of agricultural produce specified under notification shall be conducted only on the place specified, i.e., New Mandi Sthal within Agra Principal Market Yard. As the plaintiff, society used to purchase above foodgrains, i.e., dal, rice and gur directly from millers, the society was not bound to conduct business at the Mandi Yard specified in the above notification. But the employees of the Mandi Samiti, defendant, were threatening to enforce plaintiff, society to bring their articles at Mandi Yard and conduct the business from there, otherwise their licence would be cancelled, hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant. Mandi Samiti filed written statement contending that suit itself was not maintainable as plaintiff was not Registered Society and no such distinction as alleged by plaintiff was made in U. P. Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam. The plaintiff and other traders/licencees were bound to obey the directions of Mandi Samiti. No extra taxes/charges were levied by shifting Mandi Sthal. The plaintiff and its members were also bound to conduct business at new Mandi Sthal as specified in the notification dated 15.10.1981.