VARDHMAN TEXTILES LTD Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment we are disposing of the aforesaid six writ petitions since common questions of law and fact arise for decision in these cases.

(2.) ALL the petitioners before us are Spinning mills engaged in the production of cotton yarn. The petitioners in all the petitioners except in CWP No. 437/2007 manufacture the cotton yarn from cotton. The petitioner in CWP No. 437 of 2007 has alleged that it manufactures the cotton yarn out of cotton waste. All the petitioners have their manufacturing units in the State of himachal Pradesh. They alleged that they obtain the raw material from outside the state of Himachal Pradesh. The petitioners except in CWP No. 437 of 2007 purchase cotton bales from outside the State of himachal Pradesh and these cotton bales are brought to their units within Himachal pradesh and after going through a large number of processes the cotton yarn is manufactured. Petitioner in CWP No. 437 of 2007 alleged that it is only buying cotton waste from spinning mills situated outside the State of Himachal Pradesh and this cotton waste is then utilized for manufacturing of cotton yarn.

(3.) THE State of Himachal Pradesh has enacted the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural and Horticulture Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2005 (for short the Act ). Under the Act the H. P. State agriculture Marketing Board has been constituted in the State of Himachal Pradesh and marketing Committees have been constituted for different market areas. The marketing Committee, Solan, respondent No. 2 issued notices to the petitioners directing them to get themselves registered under section 40 of the aforesaid Act. The petitioners replied that they do no fall within the ambit of Section 40 and are engaged in the manufacture of cotton yarn and, therefore, they are not required to get themselves registered under the provisions of the Act. It is also urged that the Committees are not entitled to charge any market fee from the petitioners under the provisions of Section 44 of the Act. The Board-respondent No. 3 taken the view that the petitioners are liable to pay market fees to the Committee under Section 44 of the Act and it is this action of the respondents which is under challenge before us.