RAMJEE PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ application, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have stated that in April, 1978, they purchased several commodities from some grain merchants in Siwan town and paid, in addition to the price, sales tax as well as fee payable under the provisions of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Markets Act'). Subsequently, the respondents 4 and 5 acting on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3 respectively realised additional toll from them. The petitioners have challenged the right of the respondents 2 and 3 or their agents to collect any fee, toll or tax, on transactions of sale and purchase of agricultural produce within the area notified under the Act as Siwan Agricultural Produce Market area and have prayed for a writ against them restraining them to make any collection. The respondent No. 2 is the Siwan Municipality and the respondent No. 3 is the Land Reforms Deputy Collector, Siwan, under the respondent No. 1 and the respondents 4 and 5 claimed to be their respective lessees in regard to the Siwan market.

(2.) The preamble of the Markets Act indicates that the Legislature passed this Act with the object of providing better regulation of buying and selling agricultural produce and for establishment of markets for that purpose and Chap. II of the Act deals with the constitution of markets and Market Committees. In Section 5, it is mentioned that the State Government may, by notification, declare its intention of regulating the purchase, sale etc. of specified agricultural produce in a particular area, invited (sic) any objection or suggestion within the specified period. After expiry of the specified period and consideration of disposal of any objection or suggestion received, the State Government may, by a notification under Section 4 of the Act, declare the area mentioned in the notification under Section 3 (or any portion thereof) to be a market area for the purposes of the Act; and Sub-section (2) of the Section 4 declares that on the publication of the said notification, no Municipality or other local authority or other persons notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force shall within the market area or within a distance thereof, so notified set up, establish or continue any place for purchase, sale, etc. of the notified agricultural produce. According to the case of the petitioners, such a market has been established for Siwan town which is collecting the fees payable under Section 27 of the Act and the respondents 2 and 5 have no right whatsoever to collect any toll.

(3.) This application has been mainly contested on behalf of the respondents 4 and 5. The respondent No. 5 has stated that he is a lessee in respect of the market held by the State Government in Siwan town and collects tolls, taxes etc. on the strength of a lease for the year 1978-79, which was granted to him after holding a public auction. It has been further stated that the Sub-Divisional Officer, Siwan, is the Chairman of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee. Siwan and it was he who held the auction for the settlement of Siwan market in which the respondent No. 5 was the highest bidder. The right of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee to realise any toll or tax has been seriously challenged on the ground that the market has not been transferred by the State Government to the Committee. The allegations in the writ application about payment of the fees by the petitioners to the Market Committee have been denied and it has been pointed out that this question does not arise since no Market Committee is functioning in the area.