ORDER :

1. Delay condoned.

2. We heard Mr. Hemant Gupta, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Haryana.

3. This petition arises from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 22-7-2024 in CWP No.9891 of 2009 (O&M) by which the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by the sole respondent before us and thereby declared that transporting of stock from one market committee to the other would not amount to business transaction or sale and, therefore, the petitioners - herein would not be justified in demanding additional market fees.

4. The High Court in its impugned order has observed in Paras 7, 8 and 9 respectively as under:-

"7. Thus, we are satisfied that once, market fees has been paid by any individual or the dealer/firm either within the State or outside, it need not to pay it again, on the same stock. Merely transferring the stock from one Market Committee to another, would not entail payment of additional market fees, as the market fees is required to be paid on the goods, and each and every Committee is not required to demand market fees for a product separately.

8. The interpretation taken by the Appellate Authority that exemption is to be taken once and not twice, is misconceived. The correct interpretation of Rule 30(5) of the 1962 Rules, is that transferring of stock from one Market Committee to another, would not amount to business transaction or sale. Therefore, we hold that the orders demanding market fees and penalty from the petitioner is illegal and contrary to the provisions contained under Rule 30 (5) of the 1962 Rules. The impugned orders therefore cannot be sustained.

9. Accordingly, the orders passed by Zonal Administrator, dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure P-6) and 07.01.2008 (Annexure P-19), as well as the Authority, are worth to be set aside."

5. The High Court also directed the State to refund the amount deposited by the respondent - herein along with interest at the rate of 6% p.a.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the State invited our attention to a decision of this Court in the case of "Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Boards and Ors. vs. Shree Ganesh Rice and General Mills and Anr." (1999) 1 SCC 86 more particularly Paras 5 to 10 respectively which read thus:-

"5. Rule 30 of the Rules provides that no market fee shall be levied on the sale or purchase of any agricultural produce in respect of which such fee is already paid in the notified market area in which the said produce was manufactured or extracted. Sub-rules (3) to (5) are relevant in this case. They read as follows:

"30. (3) The dealer who claims exemption from the payment of market fee leviable on any agricultural produce manufactured or extracted from the agricultural produce in respect of which the market fee has already been paid in another notified market area, shall make declaration and give certificate to the committee in Form LL, where the fee has already been paid within twenty days of the day of bringing of agricultural produce within the notified market area. Form LL shall be prepared in quadruplicate form, the booklets duly attested and issued by the Secretary of the Committee against the payment fixed by the Committee.

It will be the duty of the dealer claiming exemption from the market fee under this sub-rule to send the original copy of Form LL to the Committee within whose market area the agricultural produce is brought. The second copy shall be sent to the Office of the Committee within whose market area such agricultural produce was bought, and the third and fourth copies shall be retained by the dealer-purchaser and the dealer-seller, respectively and the same shall be kept as a part of their accounts maintained in respec