MADANLAL SULTANIA PROPRIETOR MADANLAL SULTANIA, SHYAM SUNDAR SULTANIA PROPRIETOR SHYAM SUNDAR SULTANIA, RAMAN KUMAR KAMALIA PROPRIETOR RAMAN KUMAR KAMALIA AND; SATISH KUMAR KAMALIA PROPRIETOR SATISH KUMAR KAMALIA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition filed on 25.8.1994 questioned a directive to levy market fee on paddy straw by order dated 17.8.1993 of the erstwhile Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) addressed to the Bazar Samati, Warisaliganj, District- Nawadah. This led to individual notices levying market fee upon the petitioners by individual notices at Annexure-5 series of the petition for the period specified therein.

(2.) A counter affidavit and a supplementary counter affidavit have been filed on behalf of the Board. No counter affidavit has been filed by the State of Bihar. The matter was admitted for hearing on 23.5.1995. In the interregnum, the Board has been superseded on 1.9.2006 by a repeal Act and is under the control of the Administrator appointed by the State Government. The matter was taken up for hearing on 15.7.20 10 and adjourned on the submission of the petitioner that the matter stood covered by certain judgments of the Supreme Court as also of this Court, so as to enable the State and the Board to assist us appropriately. In view of the supersession of the Board, if there was an artificial distinction between the State Government and its instrumentality, the Board, even that survives no more. Sixteen years after the writ petition was filed, and hearing had commenced, prayer was made on behalf of the State to seek instructions and file counter affidavit. It is an extremely unfortunate situation to say the least. If the State was not vigilant in contesting matters before this Court to protect its own interest, we decline to give it any latitude. It is for the State to find the answer within its own portals by fixing answerability or accountability on its own officer.

(3.) Mr. Ramesh Aggarwal appearing on behalf the petitioners very fairly stated that insofar as the addition of paddy straw to the schedule of items leviable to market fee under Section 39 by the notification dated 8.12.1993 is concerned, he cannot have any grievance in law. He fairly concedes that the question of applicability of Sections 3 and 4 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter called the Market Act) does not arise at the stage of addition to the schedule of items leviable to market fee, in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court on the issue especially in light of the amendment made by the Market Act by insertion of Section 4A having been upheld.