POONAMCHAND PANNALAL Vs. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER firm is running a Dal mill. It claims that it purchases seeds of Udad, Moong, Masoor, Gram, etc. from States of Gujarat, Maharashtra and other States and brings them in Indore and splits them to convert in pulses and then sells out the pulses outside the State of Madhya Pradesh and in this manner is neither bringing in Indore any notified agricultural produce for sale nor is it buying or selling such produce within the market area. But despite this respondent No. 1 had raised the demand of Rs. 1,36,794.80 on various heads and had also dragged on its case for renewal of license and had also filed private complaint against it u/Ss. 48 and 49 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972.

(2.) IT is alleged that action of respondent No. 1 was in malafide exercise of power and in contravention of the provisions of section 19 of the Adhiniyam, 1972. Respondent No. 1 has taken the preliminary objection against the maintainability of this petition on the plea of available alternate remedy to the petitioner u/s 61 of Adhiniyam, 1972 whereby he was required to approach Director of the Mandi with his grievance first.

(3.) THERE can be no quarrel with the preposition enunciated and the interpretation placed on the provision of section 19 of the Adhiniyam in the judgments relied upon by LC for petitioner. Nor does it require any research to be conducted to reach such a conclusion that market fee was not chargeable if the notified agricultural produce was not brought for sale or bought or sold in the market area.