1. Dispute regarding market fee demands and issuance of passes under Section 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
1995 Supreme(SC) 184
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B.Majmudar : S.Mohan
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
Versus
Shree Mahalaxmi Sugar Works
Case No. : of 1995
Date of Decision : 2/2/95
Under the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, agricultural produce removed from a market area by a licensed trader is presumed sold within that area, allowing authorities to demand market fees before issuing passes, unless the trader proves otherwise.
Headnote:(A) Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 - Section 17 - Presumption of sale within market area - Agricultural produce taken out by licensed trader - Presumed to be sold within the market area unless contrary is proved - Authority entitled to raise demands for market fees before issuing passes - Dealers may rebut presumption or challenge demands as per the Act. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose regarding the authority's right to demand market fees before issuing passes for the transport of agricultural produce, based on the statutory presumption that such produce was sold within the notified market area.
Findings of Court:
The statutory explanation creates a presumption against the dealers, which empowers the authority to raise demands for fees before passes are issued.
Issues: Whether the authority is entitled to raise demands for market fees before issuing passes based on the presumption of sale within the market area.
Ratio Decidendi: The Explanation to Section 17 establishes a presumption that agricultural produce taken out of a market area by a licensed trader was sold within that area; therefore, the authority can demand fees before issuing passes, provided the dealers have the opportunity to rebut the presumption or challenge the demand under the Act.
Result: Appeals disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
administrative law
-
regulatory compliance
-
agricultural marketing
- market fees (Para 2)
-
agricultural marketing
-
regulatory compliance
Table of Contents
2. Whether the market committee is entitled to raise fee demands before issuing passes based on the statutory presumption of sale. (Para 2 )
3. The court observed that the statutory presumption against dealers allows the market committee to demand fees before issuing passes, subject to rebuttal. (Para 2 )
4. The statutory presumption of sale within a market area justifies the demand for market fees prior to the issuance of transport passes. (Para 2 )
6. What presumption exists under Section 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964?
Agricultural produce taken out of a market area by a licensed trader is presumed to have been sold within that area, unless the contrary is proved. (Para 2 )
7. May the market committee demand fees before issuing transport passes?
Yes, the market committee can raise demands against dealers before passes are issued based on the presumption that the produce was sold within the market area. (Para 2 )
8. What remedies are available to dealers against such fee demands?
Dealers may provide a valid rebuttal proving the sale did not occur within the notified market area or challenge the demand through the manner provided under the Act. (Para 2 )
(1) LEAVE granted.
(2) THE Explanation to Section 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 reads as follows :
"EXPLANATION.- For the purpose of clause (iii), unless the contrary is proved, any specified agricultural produce taken out or proposed to be taken out of a market area by or on behalf of a licensed trader shall be presumed to have been sold within such area and in such case, the price of such produce presumed to be sold shall be deemed to be such reasonable price as may be ascertained in the manner prescribed."
From this it is clear that there is a presumption against the dealers. In view of that presumption, it is open to the appellants-Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti to raise demands against the dealers before passes could be issued. If there is a valid rebuttal in that the sale did not take place within the notified market area, the dealers will be entitled to the passes, otherwise not. Of course, even the dealers are compelled to pay the market fee as demanded. It is open to them to challenge it in the manner provided under the Act.
(3) THE appeals are disposed of in the above terms,
