RAM RATTAN OM PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Replication taken on the record.

(2.) The petitioners belong to Sahnewal. They claim mandamus in this petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution commanding the respondents State of Punjab, Punjab Mandi Board, the Market Committee, Sahnewal and the Collector, Ludhiana, not to effect recovery of rural development fund. The petitioners are licensees under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1961. They purchase agricultural produce i.e paddy and bring the same into their shetlers converting it into rice and sell the same. They pay 2% of the sale price as market fee under the aforesaid Act and 4% purchased sales tax under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act. The respondents illegally wanted to claim rural development fund under the Punjab Rural Development Act, 1987 (hereinafter called "the Development Act") from the petitioners with respect to the agricultural produce purchased or brought by them as above. Notices were issued to them like Annexures P. 5 and P. 6 to pay rural development fund for the period April 198 8/04/1900 to the Market Committee. This led the petitioners to file the present petition.

(3.) The challenge in the Writ Petition to the levy of rural development fund is threefold. Firstly, it is argued that at the relevant period for which the fund is being collected, there was no Board in existence, as to be constituted under the provisions of the Act; secondly, such a Board as constituted under the Development Act has not appointed any authority to collect the fund and; thirdly, no rules are in existence under which the Market Committee could recover the fund from the petitioners under the Development Act.