Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., P.N. BHAGWATI, N.L. UNTWALIA, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND R.S. PATHAK, JJ.
Kewal Krishan Puri and another, Appellants
Versus
State of Punjab and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal Nos. 1083 of 1977, 1616, 1700-1761, 1762-1773, 1626-1627 of 1978 and Writ Petns. Nos. 4436, 4470, 4472, 4481, 4485, 4564, 4420, 4450, 4460 and 4484 of 1978
Decided on 4-5-1979.
with
M/s Bharat Ice and General Mills, Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab, Respondent.
with
M/s Pehlad Rai Dwarka Dass etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
The State of Haryana and others etc. etc., Respondents.
with
M/s Sharda Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory and another etc. etc., Appellants
Versus
The State of Haryana and others etc., Respondents.
with
M/s Hans Raj and Brothers etc., Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and another etc., Respondents.
and
M/s Sangha Gupta Rice and General Mills and others, Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others etc., Respondents.
Advocates appeared
Mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Adv. (Mr. Ravinder Bana, Adv. with him), for Appellants in C. A. No. 1083 of 1977: Mr. S. N. Kackar, Sol. Genl. (M/s. Hardev Singh and R. S. Sodhi, Advs. with him), for RR. 1-2 in C. A. No. 1083 OF 1977;; Mr. V M. Tarkunde, Sr. Adv. (Mr. S. C. Patel, Adv. with him), for the Intervener-State Agricultural Market Board and Market Committee, Nai Mandi: in C. A. No. 1083 of 1977; Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, for Applicant Intervener in C. A. No. 1083 of 1977; Mr. H. L. Sibbal, Sr. Adv. (Mr. G. G. Garv and Mr. Atma Ram, Advs. with him), for Respondent No. 3 in C. A. NO. 1083 of 1977; Mr. Bhal Singh Malik, Adv. and M/s. B. Datta and K. K. Manchanda, Adv., for Petitioner in the W. P. except in W. Ps. Nos. 4481, 4470, 4564 of 1978; Mr. S. K. Walia, Adv. and Mr. M. P. Jha, Adv., for Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 4481, 4564 and for the Appellants in C. A. No. 1616 of 1978; Mr. Sarva Mitter, Adv., for Petitioner in W. P. No. 4470 of 1978; M/s. Hardev Singh, G. C. Garg and R. S. Sodhi, Advs. for Respondents in W. P. Nos. 4430, 4472, 4481, 4485 of 1978 and C. A. No. 1616 of 1978, and W. P. No.4564 of 1978; Mr. Anil Diwan, Sr. Adv. (1703) Mr. Adarsh Kumar Goel (in all appeals), Mr. Praveen Kumar, Adv. (1703), Mis Bina Gupta, Adv. (1703) Mr. Madan Gopal Gupta (1703 to 1753) Nr, Sarva Mitter (1751-1761 and all others), for Appellants in C. A. No. 1700-1761 of 1978; mr. A. K. Sen, Sr. Adv. (4420) Dr. L. M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. (4460) (M/s. B. Datta, K. K. Manchanda and Bhal Singh Malik, Advs. with them), for Petitioners in W. P. Nos. 4420, 4450, 4460, 4484 of 1978; Mr. P. N. Lekhi, Sr. Adv. ((W. P. 4420) Mr. R. N. Sachthey, Adv. with him), for R. 1 in Appeals Nos. 1700-1761 of 1978; and W. P. Nos. 4420, 4450, 4460 and 4484 of 1978; Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Adv. (in C. A. 1700 and W. P. 4420), Mr. Gian Singh, Adv. (W. Ps. 4420, 4450, 4460, 4484 and C. As. 1700-1761), Mr. S. C. Patel, Adv., for RR. 2-3 in the Appeals Nos. 1700-1761 of 78 and W. P. nos. 4420, 4450, 4460 and 4484 of 1978; Mrs. Urmila Kapoor, Adv., for Appellants in C. A. Nos. 1626-1627 of 1978; Mr. K. K. Mohan, Adv., for Appellants in C. A. Nos. 1762-1773 of 1978; Mr. S. C. Patel, Adv., for the other appearing RR. in C. A. Nos. 1762-1763.
* Civil Writ No. 5697 of 1975, D/- 28-1-1977 reported in AIR 1977 Punj 347 (FB), C. W. P. No. 3849 of 1978, D/- 18-9-1978, C. W. P. Nos. 3351 etc. 4171 of 1977, 37, 178 and 1469 of 1978, 2625 of 1977, 1556, 1997 ad 2095 of 1978 D/- 30-9-1978, C. W. P. Nos. 45 of 1978, 888 etc. and 3426 of 1977, D/- 30-8-1978, C. W. P. Nos. 4171 of 1977 and 1356 of 1978, D/- 30-8-1978, (Punj & Har).
Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 - Section 23 - Validity Of Fixation Of Market Fees - No Dealer Made Any Murmur Or Grievance - Challenging Increase In Rate Of Market Fee - Telegraphic Instructions - In composite State and even after bifurcation of States for about a period of three years maximum rate of market fee which could be levied under Section 23 was paise for every one hundred rupees - Various Market Committees levied a fee of paise per hundred rupees and no dealer made any murmur or grievance of it - In bifurcated State by Act 25 of 1969 rate of paise was raised - It was further raised Act 28 of 1973 Thereafter by Ordinance 4 of 1974 which was replaced by Act 13 of 1974 rate was raised - Several dealers filed a number of Writ Petitions in High Court of Punjab and challenging increase in rate of market fee from time to time last one being by Act 13 of 1974 - Similarly in State rate of paise was raised by Amendment Act 28 - It was further raised by Act 21 of 1973 - By Ordinance of 1974 which was replaced by Act 17 of 1974 in State of Haryana fee was raised for every one hundred rupees as against rise in State - Several dealers of State also challenged in High Court levy and increase of market fee from time to time - All Writ Petitions were heard together - Increase and levy of fee up by various Market Committees in State was upheld and writ petitions dealers were dismissed while those dealers were allowed and increase of rate brought about by Ordinance and Act 13 of 1974 to extent was struck down – Held, Court part with these cases we would like to observe that in future if market fee is sought to be raised beyond rate per hunred rupees proper budgets estimates balance-sheets showing balance of money in hand and in deposit estimated income and expenditure etc. should carefully be prepared in light of this judgment - It may be as was submitted before us that it is not imperative either for Market Committees or Board to prepare balancesheets because their accounts are audited by government auditors but for purposes of raising market fee any further balance-sheet will give a true picture of position also with budgets and estimates - Then and then only there may be a legal justification for raising rate of market fee further to a reasonable extent - Drawing of correct balance-sheets and framing of correct estimates and budgets authorities as also State Government - Petitions Partly Allowed.
JUDGMENT
UNTWALIA, J.:—In these groups of Civil Appeals and Writ Petitions, Broadly speaking, the question which falls for determination is the validity of certain provisions of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (Punjab Act No. 23 of 1961), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the Rules framed by the States of Punjab and Haryana under the said Act as also the validity of the fixation of market fees from time to time by the various Market Committees in the States aforesaid under the direction of the Punjab State Agricultural Produce Marketing Board and the Haryana State Agricultural Produce Marketing Board. All these cases have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. In the erstwhile composite State of Punjab the Act was passed in the year 1961 to consolidate and amend the law relating to the better regulation of the purchase, sale, storage and processing of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for agricultural produce in the State. Under Section 3 of the Act the State Agricultural Marketing Board was constituted for the entire area of the composite State, which later, in the year 1966 came to be bifurated into the States of Punjab and Haryana. Under the various provisions of the Act, which will be noticed shortly hereinafter, market areas and market yards were declared putting restriction on the traders to carry on their trade under a licence granted by the various Market Committees established and constituted in accordance with Sections 11 and 12, within the specified boundaries or areas. The traders were required to take out licences on payment of a licence fee. Under Section 23 of the Act a Market Committee was required and authorised to levy on ad valorem basis fees on the agricultural produce bought or sold by licensees in the notified market area at a rate not exceeding the rate mentioned in Section 23 from time to time for every one hundred rupees.
3. In the composite State of Punjab and even after the bifurcation of the States for about a period of three years the maximum rate of market fee which could be levied under Section 23 was 50 paise for every one hundred rupees. Various Market Committees levied a fee of 50 paise per hundred rupees and no dealer made any murmur or grievance of it. In the bifurcated State of Punjab by Act 25 of 1969 the rate of 50 paise was raised to Re. 1/-. It was further raised to Rs.1.50 by Act 28 of 1973, Thereafter by Ordinance 4 of 1974 which was replaced by Act 13 of 1974 the rate was raised to Rs.2.25. Several dealers filed a number of Writ Petitions in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the increase in the rate of market fee from time to time, the last one being by Act 13 of 1974. Similarly in the State of Haryana the rate of 50 paise was raised to re. 1 by Haryana Amendment Act 28 of 1969. It was further raised to Rs. 1.50 br Act 21 of 1973. By Ordinance 2 of 1974 which was replaced by Act 17 of 1974 in the State of Haryana the fee was raised to Rs. 2/- for every one hundred rupees, as against the rise of Rs, 2.25 in the State of Punjab. Several dealers of the State of Haryana also challenged in the High Court the levy and increase of market fee from time to time. All the Writ Petitions were heard together. The increase and levy of fee up to Rs. 2/- by the various Market Committees in the State of Haryana was upheld and the writ petitions of the Haryana dealers were dismissed while those of the Punjab dealers were allowed and the increase of rate brought about by Ordinance 4 and Act 13 of 1974 to the extent of Rs. 2.25 was struck down. This decision of the High Court is reported in M/s. Hanuman Dall & General Mills, Hissar v. State of Haryana AIR 1976 Punj & Har 1. The date of the decision is November 8, 1974. In Punjab by Amendment Act 14 of 1975 Section 23 of the Act was again amended authorising the imposition of market fee at a rate not exceeding Rs. 2.25 per hundred rupees. Telegraphic instructions wer
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
