NILESH GARG Vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 17/05/2019 issued by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2 and demand dated 21/09/2019 made by respondent No. 1 from the petitioner without any assessment order.

(2.) The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s Param Export and he is a General Merchant and Commission agent and is having a licence from the respondent No. 1. The petitioner has stored on charges of Rs. 11.05 per bag per month what (FAQ Quality) in the respondent No. 2 / Corporation. Respondent No. 1 has issued a letter dated 17/05/2019 to respondent No. 2 that since it appears to be a case of mandi fee evasion and the stock has to be verified and therefore, respondent No. 2 should not permit the petitioner to transport the aforesaid stock stored with them. Respondent No. 1, thereafter, has issued a letter dated 25/05/2019 to the petitioner seeking information of stored agricultural purchase from 01/02/2019 till date and he was also asked for submission of the fortnight statement. The petitioner submitted reply along with all details, thereafter, respondent No. 1 has not permitted the petitioner to transport the stored wheat from respondent No. 2 and since the petitioner wanted to sale the aforesaid wheat and therefore, he submitted number of letters to the respondent/s. Respondent No. 2 has sent a letter dated 16/09/2019 with reference to the aforesaid letter dated 17/05/2019 to respondent No. 1, in which it has been specifically mentioned that the quality of the wheat may be reduced, because of the spent of time and the period for which the aforesaid wheat was stored has also come to an end and the petitioner is also not depositing the charges for storing beyond the period of 30th June, 2019. Respondent No. 1, thereafter, has issued a letter dated 21/09/2019 referring the letters dated 01/07/2019, 10/07/2019, 05/08/2019 and 16/08/2019 and it has been stated in these letters that since as per the alleged report dated 24/06/2019, the petitioner has not purchased the wheat as on 30/04/2019 and the purchase of wheat has been found nil and therefore, according to respondent No. 1, the petitioner has has purchased the aforesaid wheat directly and has stocked the same in the warehouse of the respondent No. 2 and thus, the petitioner has not deposited any mandi fee and nirashrit shulk upon the aforesaid stored wheat and therefore, according to the respondent, there is violation of provision of sections 6, 19, 36 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 and he was directed to deposit Rs. 10,40,383. Thereafter, show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 07/11/2019 threatening cancellation / suspension of the licence of the petitioner . The petitioner has filed reply to the said show-cause notice. The petitioner, thereafter again submitted an application on 16/11/2019 to respondent No. 2 for release of the aforesaid wheat. In the reply to the application, respondent No. 2 on 23/11/2019 has stated that the restraint order from respondent No. 1 be cleared. Being aggrieved by this, preset petition has been filed.

(3.) Learned Sr. counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that there is no provision under the Act to issue such restraint order. Provision of sections 6, 19, 23, 36 of the Act are not applicable for withholding the stock of wheat of the petitioner. It is further stated that respondent No. 1 himself has submitted MJC No. 992/2019 before Civil Court on 04/12/2019, in which relief has been sought for withholding the wheat stored by the petitioner. This relief has yet not been granted by the Civil Court. It is further clear from the aforesaid matter that respondent No. 1 knows that without any orders of competent Court, they cannot be withhold the stock of the petitioner. There is no interim order or final order by the Civil Court in favour of the respondent No. 1. He further submits that no mandi fee is due against the petitioner. It is virtually due against another firm Radheshyam Trading Co, which is not at all related with the petitioner. As per para 21 of the reply filed by the respondent also, such correspondence was there with respect to firm Radheshyam Trading Co and not with the petitioner at all. In such circumstances, impugned order deserves to be set aside and present petition be allowed.