UNITED VANASPATI LTD. Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions have been taken up for a joint disposal with the consent of counsel on both sides and heard together. It is necessary to set out the prior history to some extent in order to appreciate the contentions raised in the present proceedings.

(2.) The petitioner in C. W. P. No. 1299 of 1996 was previously known as, Shriram Foods and Fertilisers Industries, New Delhi. They filed Civil Writ Petition No 498 of 1992 in this Court challenging the levy of market fee and contending that there was no necessity for them to obtain licence under the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Act9) and the rules framed thereunder. Their main contention was that they were dealing with the Vanaspati Ghee, which was not an agricultural produce, as defined by the Act That writ petition was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 21 11 -1994. The Bench found that the statement made in the petition that the petitioners were selling Vanaspati Ghee was not true and the petitioners were attempting to misuse the process of the Court for which action should be taken. The Bench also observed that a separate case under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act be registered against the concerned person Further, the Bench expressed its opinion that the petition was devoid of substance and it was pointed out by the Bench that all vegetable oils had been included in the Schedule to the Act for purpose of levy of market fee and it necessarily means every type of vegetable oil. The definition of agricultural produce contained in section 2 (a) of the Act was also referred to by the Bench. It was found as a fact that the product was nothing but a processed vegetable oil and it was subject to the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

(3.) At that time, the petitioner in C. W. P. No. 1528 of 1995 had filed C..W. P. No 317 of 1993 on similar allegations and similar claims When it was found by the said petitioner that C W. P. No. 98 of 1992 was dismissed on the findings that the goods dealt with by them were agricultural produce, the petitioner in C, W. P. No 317 of 1993 withdrew the writ petition on the same day, that is, 21 -11 -1994, and got it dismissed. The petitioner in C. W. P. No 498 of 1992 applied for Special Leave before the Supreme Court of India against the order of this Court and that was dismissed.