RAM AUTAR SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether Rule 88 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1975, prescribing a quorum for the Assessment Sub-Committee, constituted under S.27A(1) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, is ultra vires of the said Section or of S.52 of the said Act ? Whether the prescription of a quorum for any quasi- judicial body would suffer from an inherent vice of invalidity ? These are the twin significant questions necessitating this reference to the Full Bench. Equally at issue is the correctness of the view in the two Division Bench judgements rendered at the admission stage itself in Civil Writ Jurn. Case No. 285 of 1985 (M/s. Shree Murli Manohar Rice and Dal Mills v. State of Bihar disposed of on the 1st February, 1985), and Civil Writ Jurn. Case No. 983 of 1985 (R) (Ganesh Prasad v. State of Bihar disposed of on the 29th August, 1985).

(2.) The facts are not in dispute and otherwise lie in a narrow compass. Messrs Ram Autar Santosh Kumar, the petitioner Firm, carries on the business of tobacco commission agent in the main market yard Garhwa and is admittedly a licensee under the provisions of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act). Respondent No. 4, the Secretary of the Market Committee, Garhwa, issued a notice in Form C, under the provisions of S.27A(5) and (7), directing the petitioner firm to appear before the said respondent on the 26th of April, 1985, with all the relevant records and evidence regarding the assessment of market fees. In compliance therewith, the petitioner firm appeared before the Assessment Sub-Committee, which, by its order (Annexure-2), held the petitioner firm liable for the payment of Rs. 3831.69 paise as market fees over and above the amount already paid. Consequent thereto, a demand notice No. 379 dated the 10th of May, 1985 (Annexure-3), was then issued against the petitioner.

(3.) Aggrieved by the above, the present writ petition has been preferred to challenge the order of assessment primarily on the ground that the same was made only by two out of the three members of the Assessment Sub-Committee as envisaged by S.27A(1) of the Act. At the admission stage itself, the Division Bench noticed the significance of the question, whether an order of assessment made by two members of the Assessment Sub-Committee under S.27A(1) of the Act would be illegal or not ? Finding a conflict or precedent within the Court itself on the point, the Motion Bench referred the matter to a larger Bench for an authoritative adjudication thereon and that is how it is before us now.