P. S. NARAYANA, J.

( 1 ) THE Agricultural Market Committee, Rajahmundry, represented by its Secretary, is the appellant. The appellant is the defendant in OS No. 199 of 1980 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Rajahmundry. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and the consequential injunction and also for refund of Rs. 3,071. 20 ps. , with interest thereof. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are referred to as plaintiff and defendant, as shown in the suit.

( 2 ) THE allegations in the plaint are as follows:"the plaintiff is a registered firm under the Indian Partnership Act. It does business in paddy and rice at Kadium the name and style of Sri Venkata Bylimba Rice Mill. The defendant, which is Agricultural Market Committee, Rajahmundry, alleged to have formed a committee within the meaning of Section 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Produce and Livestock Act, 1966, and notified agricultural produce and that paddy and rice is part and parcel of the said notified agricultural produce, within the meaning of the Act, but, the defendant is put to strict proof of the said allegations. The defendant-committee shall declare by notification, the limits of every market established under Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 4 under Section 4 (c) of the Act, for regulation of its business. It can frame bye-laws under Section 34 of the Act. The bye-law should be published in Gazette. Without fulfilling these conditions contemplated under law, the defendant cannot demand returns or levy market fees. The aims of the Act are to improve the marketing services, to provide fair trading in the market, to safeguard the health and sanitation of the users of the market, etc. But, the defendant has not provided any of the basic facilities to invoke the aid of Section 12 of the Act as contemplated by Rule 27 of the Rules framed thereunder. The defendant has not been conducting auctions, controlling the market or preventing the adulteration of notified committees or providing grading facilities or directing sales by the producers or testing the measurements or providing storage facilities etc. , more particularly described in the Rules 26, 27, 36, 37, 54, 56, 57, 59, 72 etc. Without first complying with the provisions of law, the defendant has no right to levy market fees or enforce the provisions of law against the users of the market. Strictly speaking, the defendant has not established market yard as contemplated under Section 4 (3) of the Act and it is not possible for the defendant to discharge its duties as contemplated by the rules framed thereunder, the Act or to fulfill its objects. There are, in fact, no sales or purchases taking place in the alleged market yard. There is no quid pro quo relation between the plaintiff and the defendant, for the defendant to levy market fees. However, the defendant collected an amount of Rs 3,071. 20 ps. From the plaintiff on 21-3-1980 towards market fee by exercising its power under the Act and the plaintiff, under a mistaken impression that he was liable to pay, paid the amount, but the defendant is not entitled to collect the said amount. Therefore, the plaintiff submits that it is entitled to recover the said amount of Rs. 3,071. 20 ps. , from the defendant with interest at 6% per annum. Further, the defendant issued a notice dated 7-10-1980 and 21-10-1980 calling upon the plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs. 13,598. 00 towards market fee from 1-3-1980 to 30-9-1980 in respect of the purchases made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff submits that for the reasons stated in the proceeding paras, the defendant is not entitled to demand such payment from the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff prays for a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to demand and collect market fee from the plaintiff and for the consequential relief of issuing a permanent injunction against the defendant, restraining it from making any demand of market fee in pursuance of the notices dated 7-10-1980 and 21-10-1980

Click Here to Read the rest of this document