ORDER

1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 12 - 9 - 2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Civil Review Petition No. 132 of 2001 with MJC No. 2298 of 2000.

2. In the State of Bihar a controversy arose as to whether the sugar factories engaged in purchasing sugarcane and selling sugar and sugar h molasses are liable to pay market fee under the provisions of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (for short "the Act"). The High Court in Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar1 held that the sugar factories engaged in purchasing sugarcane and selling sugar and sugar molasses are liable to pay market fee under the Act. This judgment was challenged in this Court.

3. The appellants filed Title Suit No. 84 of 1977 for restraining the Bihar Agricultural Marketing Board (for short "the Board") from realising market fee. An order of injunction was passed and ultimately the said title suit was decreed. In the appeal the order of the trial court was set aside. Aggrieved against the order of the first appellate court, the appellants filed Second Appeal No. 516 of 1993 which was dismissed. The appellants, being aggrieved, filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16487 of 2001 in this Court which was dismissed on 5 - 10 - 2001.

4. The State of Bihar issued a notification deleting sugar from the commodity to which the Act was applicable. Later on, the said notification was revived and the High Court took the view that on the revival of the notification on the commodity, the notification could not be treated to have attracted the provisions of the Act. Thereafter, the Act was again amended and Section 4 - B was inserted deleting the earlier notification deleting sugar from the Schedule of the Act.

5. The appellants and some other similarly affected sugar industries challenged the aforesaid provisions of the Act. While the writ applications were pending in the High Court, it was brought to the notice of the High Court that other sugar mills were paying the market fee to some extent but the appellants were not paying the market fee. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that if the Court directs then the appellants would deposit some amount to establish its bona fides which could be made subject to further orders to be passed by the Court. According to the Board, more than Rs 40 lakhs was due as market fee after the insertion of the provision of Section 4 - B in the Act, whereas according to the counsel for the appellants only Rs 15 to 16 lakhs were due. The High Court vide its interim order dated 16 - 12 - 1993 taking note of the submissions of the parties, ordered the appellants to deposit Rs 15 lakhs before the Registrar of the High Court subject to further orders to be passed by the Court. Finally, the High Court upheld the amended provisions (Section 4 - B of the Act) against which appeals were also filed in this Court.

6. A Constitution Bench of this Court decided the appeal filed by Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. as well as that of the appellants and others vide its judgment dated 10 - 8 - 1999 titled Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar2. It was held by this Court that the provisions of the Act were not applicable in the case of sugar factories engaged in purchasing sugarcane and seIling sugar and molasses. However, it was held that the operation of the judgment will be prospective and not retrospective. It was specifically stated that the market fee paid in the past will not be refunded and market fee not collected in the past shall not be collected hereafter. Paras 111, 112 and 113 of the judgment read as under: (SCC pp. 667 - 68, paras 111 - 13)

"111. As a result of our conclusion on the findings of the aforesaid a two contentions, the appeals and other writ petition in the sugar group matters will be required to be allowed and the impugned judgment of the High Court in all these matters will have to be set aside. However, the further question that survives is as to what relief can be given t