BALKISHAN Vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of connected W.P. No. 1557/02 arising out of the same order. In both these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 22.4.2002 (Annexure P-5) passed by Additional Director, M.P. Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board, Bhopal in statutory appeal. Brief facts of the case are that admittedly the petitioners firm are carrying the business of manufacturing of edible oil, from oil seed which is being purchased by them partly from Mandi area Indore and partly from other Mandis within the State of M.P. and outside the State, within the market area of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Indore. By various demand notices, the respondent No. 2 directed the petitioners to deposit Mandi fee and Nirashrit Shulk payable on the edible oil purchased during the period from 1987 to 1990. The case of the petitioners is that no Mandi fee could be demanded by the Mandi Samiti as they have already paid the Mandi fee on the oil seed from which the oil is being produced. In reply to the demand notice, the petitioners have claimed that no Mandi fee is payable on the oil as they have already paid Mandi fees on oil seed. The further allegation of the petitioners is that without reassessment, the Mandi Committe vide letter dated 8.1.1996 referred the matter and issued RRC to the Nayab Tehsildar for recovery. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid recovery notice before the Director, Mandi in appeal and the Additional Director, Mandi by a common order dated 22.4.2002, disposed of the appeals directing the Mandi Committee to reassess and determine the Mandi fee afresh. In the order impugned, the Additional Commissioner has further directed that the petitioners shall deposit 60 percent of the Mandi fee with interest within a period of 45 days with a further direction that on assessment if it is found to be excess, the excess amount so deposited by the petitioners would be refunded, against which the petitioners have collectively filed these petitions.

(2.) I have heard Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned senior advocate for the petitioner, Shri Mandhanya, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned senior advocate for respondents No. 3 and 4.

(3.) I have perused the order impugned as well as the order passed in W.P. No. 1226/96. In that petition also in the order impugned the petitioners were directed to deposit 60 percent of the amount due and payable under demand notice and that was also the subject matter for consideration before the Judge. The learned Judge considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and held that the appellate authority was right in its discretion to stay the impugned demand to the extent of remaining 40 percent till the reassessment is not done. The counsel for the petitioners could not convince me that in a similar case when this Court has already taken a view on the factual aspect of the matter and decline the arguments and refused to set aside the order of depositing 60% of the amount of demand notice then it would not be proper for this Court to arrive at a different view than the one taken earlier by the Court. More so before the appellate Court below, the parties preferred to argue that their case be decided and be remanded to the Mandi Samiti for reassessment on the basis of earlier decision as per W.P. 1226/96 then how they can ask for more relief from this Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which they had not asked from the appellate Court.