Back
2009 Supreme(Kar) 220
High Court of Karnataka
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR
M/s. Mysore Fruit Products Limited, Bangalore
Versus
The Director of Marketing & Others
Writ Petition No. 5158 of 2006 (APMC)
Decided on : 30-03-2009
For the Petitioner:B.R. Satenahalli, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 & R3, H.K. Basavaraj, Government Advocate, R2, C.S. Patil, Advocate.
Headnote:KARNATAKA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING (REGULATION) ACT, 1966 - Section 65-A :[D.V.Shylendra Kumar,J] Liability to pay market fee - It is for the petitioner to furnish proper/full addresses of the purchasers, which could enable the Market Committee to examine the matter. If the petitioner fails to furnish the correct address of the dealers from whom he claims to have made purchases, it is open to the Market Committee to determine the market fee based on the books of account available with it. Section 65-A of the Act is a provision, which enables the Market Committee to impose penalty in respect of a person who fails to pay the market fee before due date. Penalty part of the order was quashed
KARNATAKA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING (REGULATION) ACT, 1966 - Sections 70 & 70A: [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Scope - Section 70-A of the Act is a provision, which enables the Market Committee to accept the request of the person who has committed or is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence under the Act, by way of composition an amount as stipulated therein for levying penalty is Section 65-A and not Section 70 of the Act. Penalty can follow only after determination of the actual liability for payment of market fee and not, even before quantification of market fee. Liberty is reserved to the Market Committee to take such action, as it deems fit for levy of penalty.
KARNATAKA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING (REGULATION) ACT, 1966 - Section 70(1)(a): [D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J] Levy of penalty - Petitioner’s unit, carrying on activity of processing agricultural products from the year 1999-2000 onwards and till as of now the petitioner does not have a license - Criminal cases were filed consequently as per the direction of the Director of Marketing - Application has been made in the year 2001, but that has not enabled the petitioner to get a license -Quantification of market fee payable by the petitioner is still subject to further verification of books of account and therefore it cannot be said that the actual liability on the part of the petitioner for payment of market fee has been determined - Held, It is rather difficult to sustain the penalty either under the provisions of Section 65-A of the Act or under the provisions of Section 70-A of the Act or under the provisions of the Section 70-A of the Act.
D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J.
Writ Petition by a private limited Company, having a processing unit of agricultural products essentially approved within the market area of the second respondent – Special Agricultural Produce Market Committee for Fruits and Vegetables. While this is the fourth round of writ litigation before this Court, petitioner is basically aggrieved by an endorsement dated 14.12.2004 issued by the third respondent (copy produced at Annexure – "C" to this Writ Petition) where under the petitioner has been asked to remit a total amount of Rs.43,42,776/-by way of market fee and penalty in respect of the petitioner's transactions within the market yard during the periods from 1996-97 upto 22.6.2004.
2. Petitioner had been asked to remit this amount on the premise that petitioner, a person is required to carry out his transaction within the market yard by obtaining a license, had not obtained a license and having also not paid the market fee payable in respect of agricultural produce purchased by him which was being processed in his processing unit and marketed as a processed agricultural product.
3. Version of the petitioner is that the petitioner had made an application for grant of a license in the year 2001, but had taken the stand that they were not liable to pay any market fee as they are an exporter; that the Market Committee rejected the application because of the stand of the petitioner and the appeal to the Director of Marketing under Section 74 of the Act was rejected on the ground that the period for which the petitioner had applied for license itself had expired, and the petitioner was directed to file fresh application and another application was filed by the petitioner in the year 2003 which also came to be dismissed by the Market Committee and against this order of rejection, petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 36610/2004: that the Writ Petition was disposed of as per the order dated 8.11.2004 (copy produced at Annexure
– "B" to this Writ Petition) permitting the petitioner to file fresh application in the prescribed proforma and directions to the Market Committee to consider the said application, expeditiously, etc.
4. It is the version of the petitioner that another application was made in the year 2004 to the Market Committee and the Market Committee promptly rejected this application also. An appeal under Section 74(1)(a) of the Act to the Director, was disposed of as per the order dated 27.6.2005 rejecting the appeal for the reason that the petitioner had not deposited or paid the arrears of fee payable by the petitioner (Copy produced at Annexure – "D" to this Writ Petition).
5. It is further contended that the petitioner approached this Court yet again by filing W.P. no. 24478/2005 and this petition was ordered on 2.1.2006 remanding the matter to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration of the matter in the light of the directions contained in the order itself (copy produced at Annexure – ‘E' to this Writ Petition).
6. It is thereafter the Appellate Authority proceeded to pass order on 13.3.2006 observing inter alia that the petitioner had indulged in carrying on transaction in notified agricultural produce in the market yard without obtaining a license from the Marketing Committee and therefore the writ petitioner was liable to pay the market fee and the penalty amount as per the order dated 14.12.2004 (Annexure – "C"), but in the light of the directions issued by this Court, petitioner was permitted to remit the balance amount of Rs.43,42,776/-either by way of Demand Draft or by furnishing bank guarantee and to apply for license in the prescribed form and the amount/bank guarantee being furnished by the petitioner subject to the outcome of the verification of account book and other particulars regarding payment of market fee from the other dealers from whom the petitioner had purchased the agricultural products and depending on the outcome, the petiti
