JAI RAM HANS RAJ Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of the learned, single Judge dismissing C. W. No. 728 of 1970 on 26th July, 1971.

(2.) THE appellant is a firm carrying on business as a licensed dealer in agricultural produce at village Mullana within the territorial jurisdiction of Market Committee, Ambala Cantt. On 9th December, 1969, the business premises of the appellant were visited by the secretary of the market committee, who found that entries with regard to ten transactions of sale had not been made by the appellant in its book in form 'h' although the auction and weighment of the goods covered by them had already taken place. The total value of such goods was found to be Rs. 2,204. 00 on which the market fee payable was Rs. 22. 04.

(3.) ON 8th January, 1970, the administrator of the committee issued a notice to the appellant in form 'o' declaring that the firm had not furnished return/correct return in form 'm' for the period from 1st April, 1969, to 9th December, 1969 and that it had made habitual default in the submission of return for that period from which it appeared to the committee that the firm had failed to furnish the return in respect of the above-mentioned period and that an assessment under Rule 31 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), in respect of the above-mentioned period should be made. The appellant-firm was directed to produce or cause to be produced its accounts and documents at the office of the Market Committee at Ambala Cantt. A partner of the appellant-firm appeared and pleaded guilty with regard to the omission of the transactions which had been found by the secretary on 9th December, 1969 and asked for forgiveness. The administrator passed an order dated 19th January, 1970, making an assessment on the appellant at the rate of, Rs. 22. 04 per working day with effect from 1st April, 1969, to 9th December, 1969, in exercise of his power under Rule 31 (8) of the Rules. The secretary of the market. committee was directed to work out the working days and the total amount to be recovered from the appellant on that basis. The appellant-firm challenged that order of assessment by filing C. W. No. 728 of 1970 in this court which was dismissed by the learned single Judge as stated above.