SHYAM TRADING CO Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are engaged in the business of sale and purchase of various kinds of Agricultural produce and have been duly granted licence for the same by respondent no. 3 Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Itarsi. Challenge put forth in these bunch of writ petitions is to the orders passed under Section 19 (4) of the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Adhiniyam 1972, whereby on a finding arrived at that the petitioners have re-sold the notified agricultural produce without payment of market fee payable on such produce, have been subjected to pay five times the market fee with nirashrit fees.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners is that between the period from 1. 10. 2001 to 10. 12. 2001 at different time, the petitioners purchased some agricultural produce from respondents No. 5 to 7 - who were licenced traders of respondent No. 4 krishi Upak Mandi Samiti, Dabra. These transactions, it is urged, were commercial transactions and were under clear understanding and bonafide belief that the market fees on said agricultural produce was already paid by respondents No. 5 to 7 firms during the course of first transaction taken place in the market area of respondent no. 4. It is contended that the requisite permit (anugya patra) which is required for dispatching and removing the agricultural produce separately from the market area of respondent no. 4, in duplicate, issued from the respondent no. 4. These permits, it is contended, bear the hologram, a symbol of their genuineness. It is further contended that on the strength of said permits, the agricultural produce purchased from market area of respondent No. 4 were accepted at market area of respondent no. 3 where the petitioners are registered as traders and since the agricultural produce had suffered the market fees during the course of first transaction the petitioners were granted exemption from market fees at Itarsi, market area.

(3.) THE petitioners were subjected to a show cause notice dated 1. 1. 2004. The show cause notice had the reference of a letter No. B-6/1-2/44/1 Part-4/ Dabra/ 929 dated 22. 12. 2003 of the Managing Director, M. P. State Agriculture Marketing board, disclosing therein that the permits issued to cover the agricultural produce purchased at market are of respondent No. 4 on verification by State Economic offence Investigation Bureau were found forged, and therefore, the exemption sought by the petitioner from the payment of market fee at market area Itarsi was not proper. Thus, by said show cause notice the petitioners were granted the opportunity to explain as to why five times market fee be not recovered along with interest. The petitioners filed their reply indicating therein that they were not instrumental in the forgery, but had entered into a commercial transaction with the traders registered with respondent No. 4, and therefore, the petitioners cannot be saddled with the penal rate on a presumption that no market fee was paid for the agricultural produce purchased by the petitioners. Respondent No. 3 after considering the reply filed by the petitioners passed the orders holding them liable for five times market fee along with interest and the nirashrit fee. The orders were individually addressed to respective petitioners. Being aggrieved the petitioners preferred representation under section 59 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 before the Additional Director, Madhya Pradesh State Agricultural Marketing board, which came to be rejected by order dated 14. 3. 2006. Challenge to the order in appeal before the State Government was also negatived by order dated 5. 2. 2008. These orders are under challenge in these bunch of writ petitions which were analogously heard.