SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(AP) 31

B.SUBHASHAN REDDY, S.R.NAYAK
Kurnool Dist. Rice Millers Association – Appellant
Versus
Agricultural Market Committee, Amtakur – Respondent


( 1 ) IN this batch of writ petitions, the complaint is that even though there is no sale or purchase within the area of a Market Committee, they are being harassed and subjected to pay the market fees again and again. Under Section 12 (1) of A. P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, the Market Committee is obligated to levy the fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the notified market area at the rate specified. There is a presumption under Explanation I to the above section that all notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock taken out of a notified market area shall, unless the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been purchased or sold within such area. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 places an obligation on the purchaser to pay the said market fees and only if purchaser cannot be identified, then the market fees shall be paid by the seller. The scope of relevant rule, which falls for consideration, is Rule 74 (1) of A. P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, 1969. The said rule explains the extent of the liability of the effect that if the fees leviable under




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top