Judgment

P. K. GOSWAMI, J. - In these appeals by certificate of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana validity of action taken by the Market Committee, Patiala, under the provisions of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, is under challenge.

2. The appellants are shop-keepers of Gur Mandi, Patiala, and are, licensees under Section 30 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (briefly the Act) and are also pacca arhtiyas. It is not in dispute that they sell gur and sakhar within the market area notified under the Act. It is also admitted that they have licences under Section 10 of the Act in Form B as kacha arhtiya or commission agent. Since they were found to be selling gur and sakhar in their own shops within the notified market area without submitting accounts and without payment of fees they were asked to show cause by the Market Committee why legal action should not be taken against them for violation of Rules 29 (3) and 31 (1) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (briefly the Rules) and for violation of condition No. 1 of the licence which is to the effect that the licensee shall comply with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws framed thereunder and instructions issued from time to time.

3. The appellants disclaimed liability to pay fee under the Act on various grounds. The Administrator of the Market Committee after some correspondence levied on one of the appellants, M/s. Prem Chand Ram Lal, appellants in Civil Appeal No, 120 of 1972, Rs. 5,014 as market fee on the basis of, best judgment assessment and imposed equal amount of penalty and a demand notice was issued for payment. M/s. Prem Chand Ram Lal filed a writ application before the High Court for quashing the demand notice. The High Court allowed the petition quashing the order of assessment as arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. The High Court, however, rejected the other contentions of the said petitioner questioning the validity of the fee levied. M/s. Prem Chand Ram Lal filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge rejecting their other substantial points.

4. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 299 of 1972 had also filed a writ application under Articles 226 and 227 Of the Constitution in the High. Court Questioning the action taken against them as well as the levy under the Act. By a common judgment of March 25, 1970, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal of M/s. Prem Chand Ram Lal as also the writ application of the appellants and granted certificates to appeal to this Court.

5. The question is whether the appellants are liable to payment of fee under the Act.

6. Action in this case was taken for violation of Rules 29 (3) and 31 (1) of the Rules. We will read these rules:

"R. 29 (1). Under Section 23 a Committee shall levy fees on the agricultural produce bought ,or sold by licensees in the notified market area at the rates fixed by the Board from time to time......"

x x x x

(3) "The fees shall be paid to the Committee or a paid officer duly authorised to receive such payment on the day of the transaction or on the following day."

"R. 31 (1). Every licenced, dealer and every dealer exempted under Rule 18 from obtaining a licence shall submit to the Committee a return in Form M showing his purchases and sale of each transaction of agricultural produce on each day, on the day on which the transaction takes place or on the following day......"

x x x x

7. The fault of the appellants lies in that they have neither paid fees under Rule 29 (3) nor have they submitted returns in Form M . A perusal of the above two rules would show that the Committee is authorised to levy fees on agricultural produce bought or sold only by a licensee in the notified market area. Similarly under R. 31 (1) only a licenced dealer is required to submit a return.

8. We have now to take note of the scheme disclosed in a few other relevant provisions