1983 Supreme(AP) 292

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.MADHAVA REDDY, P.KODANDA RAMAYYA
GODAVARI TRADING COMPANY, PALAKOL - Appellant
Versus
AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE PALAKOL - Respondent
Decided On : 08-29-83

Headnote:

Levy of market fee on sale and purchase of rice recovered from paddy which had already suffered levy of market fee - Validity - Applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel against the Government and Market Committees - Whether the Government and Market Committees are estopped from collecting the market fee on the ground that the Government had issued a memorandum directing the Market Committees not to press for collection of market fee arrears on account of rice where fee has already been collected in the form of paddy - Applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel in public law - Whether an independent doctrine of administrative estoppel is required to be developed.

Fact of the Case:

The Government of Andhra Pradesh, after following the procedure laid down in the Act, published a final notification declaring an area to be a notified area for the purpose of regulating the purchase and sale of agricultural produce and live-stock and the products of live stock. Paddy was declared to be an agricultural produce for the purpose of the Act. The Government also constituted a market committee for the notified area. The market committee levied fees on any notified agricultural produce, live-stock or products of live-stock purchased or sold in the notified market area at the rate not exceeding one percent as specified in the bye-laws for every hundred rupees on the aggregate amount for which the notified agricultural produce, live-stock or products of live stock is purchased or sold, whether for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration. The fees referred to in sub-section (1) were to be paid by the purchaser of the notified agricultural produce, live-stock or products of live stock. The market committee was also empowered to collect market fees through its licensed commission agents. The Government, in G. O. Ms. No. 136, F and A. , dated 26-3-1981 revoked the decision not to levy market fee on such rice and cancelled the draft amendment to Rule 74 and directed market fee to be levied on the sales, and purchases of both paddy and rice irrespective of the fact whether the rice is derived from paddy which had already suffered market fee or not. Pursuant to that decision the market Committees have called upon the petitioners to pay market fee on transactions of resultant rice as well. The validity of G. O. Ms. No. 136, dated 26-3-1981 and the legality of the notice which demanded market fee on such rice was called in question in a number of writ petitions, which were all dismissed by a common judgment by our learned brother Raghuvir, J. Some of the unsuccessful writ petitioners have preferred these writ appeals. Some other licenced traders raising the same contentions have filed separate writ petitions. The learned single Judge thus rejected all the contentions of the writ petitioners and dismissed the writ petitions out of which the above writ appeals arise.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that rice is an agricultural produce and market fee could be levied on the sale and purchase of rice. The Court also held that even if paddy had earlier suffered levy of fee on its sale and purchase, rice recovered from such paddy could once again be subject to levy of market fee. The Court also held that the Govt. is not estopped from collecting the market fee in view of any of the G. Os referred to above.

Issues: 1. Whether rice is an agricultural produce and market fee could be levied on the sale and purchase of rice? 2. Whether even if paddy had earlier suffered levy of fee on its sale and purchase, rice recovered from such paddy could once again be subject to levy of market fee? 3. Whether the Govt. is estopped from collecting the market fee in view of any of the G. Os referred to above?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that rice is an agricultural produce and market fee could be levied on the sale and purchase of rice. The Court observed that rice is a product obtained from land in the course of agriculture and it has been declared to be an agricultural produce under the Act. The Court also noted that the definition of agricultural produce in the Act includes anything produced from land in the course of agriculture or horticulture and includes forest produce or any produce of like nature either processed or unprocessed. 2. The Court held that even if paddy had earlier suffered levy of fee on its sale and purchase, rice recovered from such paddy could once again be subject to levy of market fee. The Court observed that the charging Section of the Act authorizes the levy of market fee on agricultural produce and Rule 74 of the Rules made provision in this behalf and regulates procedure for collection of market fee leviable. The Court also noted that Bye-law 24 of the Market Committee stipulates when and at what points and at what rate market fee may be levied and collected. 3. The Court held that the Govt. is not estopped from collecting the market fee in view of any of the G. Os referred to above. The Court observed that the Government had issued a memorandum directing the Market Committees not to press for collection of market fee arrears on account of rice where fee has already been collected in the form of paddy. The Court also noted that the Director of Marketing had requested the Agricultural Market Committees not to press for collection of market fee arrears on account of rice where fee has been collected on it in the form of paddy. The Court held that this was not a communication to the licensed traders and, therefore, it did not estop them from collecting the market fee legally leviable under the provisions of the Act.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and writ appeals to the extent indicated and directed the Market Committees to re-assess the amount of market fee due from the traders in respect of the rest of the period in the light of the above judgment and the Market Committees shall be entitled to recover the said amount subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws.