BHANAVI AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners questioning the vires of Rule 58 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963 (referred to herein after as 'the Rules of 1963'). Prayer has also been made to quash the common order dated 16.3.2010 passed by the Director, Agricultural Produce Marketing Board, Jodhpur (referred to herein after as 'the Agricultural Board').

(2.) THE common question arises in these writ applications, as such they are decided by this common order. Facts are being narrated from CWP No.7715/2010 (Arihant Udhyog. vs. State of Raj. & Ors.).

(3.) LEARNED counsel Mr.Ravi Bhansali, Mr.Yashwant Mehta and Mr.LK Purohit appearing on behalf of the respondents have submitted that it is apparent from the order passed by the Director that the goods are delivered in the market area and till the delivery of the goods, as apparent from the invoice, the property remains with the seller. Thus, a conjoint reading of Section 4 read with Section 19 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 makes it clear that the goods passed to the buyers i.e. Petitioners in the market area. Thus, the provision of Section 17 of the Act of 1961 is clearly attracted. They are holding license also for trading in the market area and this fact has been admitted before the Director that the petitioners are trading in agricultural produce. In view of the admitted fact, as recorded in the order passed by the Director, the petitioners cannot be permitted to contend contrary to the same. They are liable to make payment of market fee. They have further submitted that the effect of deletion of Rule 58(4) is that earlier export of goods was exempted from fee. Now that provision has been deleted. However, Proviso to Rule 58(4) provided that in case the goods are retained for twenty days, the liability to make the payment of market fee shall be on the person bringing the produce into the market area, even in such a case of export. Since that provision has been deleted, the effect is that even when the goods have been bought in the market area in that exigency, the trader is liable to make payment of market fee. They have also relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and others. vs. Orient Paper & Industries Ltd. [(1995) 1 SCC 655] and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Allahabad. vs. Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Private Limited and another [(2011) 12 SCC 277].