BAJRANG KHANDSARI UDYOG, NIZAMPUR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-concern, which, according to it, manufacturers khandsari after acquiring standing sugarcane crop and tending it, impugns the notice dated January 21, 1978 (Annexure P.2), issued by the Market Committee, Gohana, under section 33-A (1) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), whereby it had been directed to produce its account books pertaining to purchase, sale, storage and processing, for the period November 1, 1976 to March 31, 1977 before the said Committee on a date specified therein. The case of the petitioner is that since it produces agricultural produce and indulges in retail sale only it is not liable to hold a licence under the Act and is thus not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Committee to produce its account books as directed by the Committee. This stand of the petitioner is disputed on behalf of the Committee though no return to the petition has been filed.

(2.) Mr. Gian Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Committee does not dispute that before the petitioner can be directed to produce its account books in pursuance of Annexure P.2, its claim that it is not liable to hold any licence under the Act has to be gone into and determined by a competent authority. According to Mr. Gian Singh, this question is to be settled by the Market Committee in terms of section 13(1) (b) read with section 8 of the Act as according to him, it is the Committee which has to control and regulate the admission and use etc. To the market and even to confiscate the said produce if it belongs to a person who is trading without a valid licence. The learned counsel further accepts the position that in case the decision of the Committee in this regard goes against a particular individual, he can approach the Chairman of the Marketing Board under rule 18(5) to settle the dispute finally. It is in the light of this legal position that the learned counsel maintains that unless the petitioner exhausts these remedies with regard to its claim for exemption to hold a licence under the Act, it cannot possibly impugn notice Annexure P.2. I see merit in this stand of the learned counsel. It is patent in the light of the provisions of section 13 (1)(b) read with section 8 of the Act that the petitioner is well within its right to claim in reply to notice Annexure P.2 that it is not liable to hold a licence under the Act. But it has failed to do any such thing and has rather rushed to this court to claim exercise of this extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In order to adjudicate upon the claim of the petitioner that it is not liable to hold a licence under the Act,the factual position has to be settled first.

(3.) In the light of the above discussion, I relegate the petitioner to its remedies under the Act, but since the time specified in Annexure P.2 has already expired, I entitle it to put forth its claim before the Committee within a period of one month from today. The Committee shall then dispose of the matter in accordance with law and the observations made above. It is, however, made clear that till the Committee finally decides the question as to whether the petitioner, is exempt to hold a licence under the Act or not, it would not take any steps under notice Annexure P.2.