SHIV DAYAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of C.W.P. No. 1105 of 1986 and thirty-eight other writ petitions (Nos. 900, 1315, 2146, 2227, 2231, 2247, 2273, 2274, 2275, 2276, 2277, 2278, 2279, 2280, 2281, 2282, 2370, 2371, 2372, 2373, 2374, 2375, 2409, 2410, 2411, 2412, 2413, 2414, 2619, 2807, 2836, 2845, 2957, 2976, 2977, 2978, ''sic and 3804 of 1986) as identical questions of fact and law are involved. All these cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. Since no additional point has been urged by the learned counsel in other writ petitions, it is agreed by them that the decision in this writ petition will decide the fate of the other writ petitions as well.

(2.) Shiv. Dayal Singh Ramesh Chander and 168 other petitioners have filed C.W.P. No. 1105 of 1986 against the State of Haryana and others, wherein they have challenged the constitutionality of the Haryana Rural Development Act, 1986 (Harayana Act No. 6 of 1986), hereinafter referred to as the "1986 Act" and have prayed for the issuance of the writ of mandamus declaring the impugned Act as unconstitutional and for a direction to the respondent State and the Assessing Authorities to refund the amounts deposited by them along with interest. A copy of the 1986 Act has been annexed by the petitioners as Annexure- P-2 with the writ petition.

(3.) A brief history of the legislation of the 1986 Act would be necessary to be stated in order to appreciate the respective contentions of the parties. In 1983, the State of Haryana enacted the Haryana Rural Development Fund Act, 1983 (Haryana Act No. 12 of 1983), (hereinafter called the 1983 Act'). Under this Act, it was envisaged to levy a cess at the rate of 1 per cent on every sale and purchase of agricultural produce in the market area located in the State of Haryana. A number of writ petitions were filed in the Punjab and Haryana High Court to challenge the constitutional validity of the 1983 Act which were accepted by the learned single Judge of this Court by his judgment dated 13th Oct. 1984, reported as Om Prakash v. Giri Raj Kishore, AIR 1985 Punj and Har 52. The learned single Judge held that the 1983 Act purported to levy fee on the traders and that there was no provision for rendering any service to them. While declaring the 1983 Act unconstitutional, a further direction was also issued that the amounts deposited by the writ petitioners be refunded to them. Against the said judgment, the State of Haryana preferred, a letters patent appeal and by its judgment dated 20th May, 1985, a Division Bench of this Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge and thereby dismissed the writ petitions. The judgment of the Letters Patent Bench upholding the constitutionality of the 1983 Act is reported as State of Haryana v. Om Prakash, AIR 1985 Punj and Har 317. This judgment of the Letters Patent Bench was challenged in the Supreme Court and while allowing the appeal the Supreme Court by its judgment dated 28-1-1986 reported as Om Prakash Agarwal v. Giri Raj Kishore, AIR 1986 SC 726Om Prakash Agarwal v. Giri Raj Kishore, AIR 1986 SC 726, set aside the judgment of the High Court, declared the 1983 Act as unconstitutional and void. The Supreme Court further held that the levy imposed by the State was not a fee as claimed by it but was a tax which was not leviable by the State. Consequently, levy of the cess under S.3 of the 1983 Act was quashed and S.3 being the charging section and the rest of the sections of the said Act being just machinery or incidental provisions, the whole of 1983 Act was declared unconstitutional on the ground that the State legislataure was not competent to enact it. A writ was accordingly issued directing the State Government not to enforce the Act against the appellants.