Endorsement on Bills of Lading is crucial for validating sales on high seas; absence renders a transaction an agreement for sale, attracting market fees under the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee.

ORDER :

1. These three Writ Petitions are filed assailing three different orders dated 17.11.2021, passed by second respondent. The impugned order in each of the petitions is marked at Annexure-A. The petitioner in each of the petitions is different, and the respondents are the same. The questions involved in each petition are the same. Hence all the petitions are clubbed and heard together.

Facts in W.P. No.14908/2022

2. In terms of Annexure-A, second respondent has directed the petitioner to pay Rs.73,69,200/-. Out of the said amount, Rs. 18,42,300/- is the market fee at 1.5% on Rs. 12,28,20,000/-, the value of the agricultural produce (11,000 metric tonnes of wheat), and Rs. 55,26,900/- is the penalty.

3. The petitioner M/s. Parisons Milling Company Private Limited is directed to pay the said amount on the premise that the petitioner has sold 11,000 metric tonnes of wheat within the “market area” as defined in the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966 ( for short ‘Act, 1966’).

4. In terms of the impugned order, second respondent rejected the petitioner's claim that on 28.10.2006, it sold 9,000 metric tonnes of wheat, on “high seas” to its sister concern, M/s Parisons Foods Private Limited.

Facts in W.P. No.14950/2022

5. This petition is filed by M/s Parisons Foods Private Limited. In terms of the impugned order dated 17.11.2021, second respondent directed the petitioner, M/s Parisons Foods Private Limited to pay Rs 61,21,568/-, which includes Rs. 15,30,392/- towards 1.5% market fee on Rs 10,20,26,160/-, the value of wheat, and Rs. 45,91,176/- towards penalty.

6. The petitioner’s claim is that on 28.10.2006, it purchased 9,000 metric tonnes of Australian wheat from M/s. Parisons Milling Company Private Limited on “high seas’ when the wheat was enroute to Mangalore from Australia is not accepted by 2^nd respondent.

Facts in W.P.No.14948/2022

7. M/s Parisons Roller Flour Mills Private Limited is the petitioner in W.P.No.14948/2022. Second respondent in terms of impugned order dated 17.11.2021, has directed the petitioner to pay Rs 33,07,351/-, which includes market fee of Rs 8,26,838/-@ 1.5% on Rs 5,51,22,500/- the value of notified agricultural produce, and penalty of Rs 24,80,513/-

8. The petitioner’s claim is that on 31.10.2006, it purchased 5,000 metric tonnes of Australian wheat from M/s AWB India Private Limited on “high seas’ when the wheat was enroute to Mangalore from Australia is not accepted by 2^nd respondent.

9. The petitioners’ claims are rejected by the respondent-APMC, which held that the petitioners have not produced the original Bills of Entry, agreements for sale and other records. The respondent - committee has also found discrepancies in the value of the goods allegedly purchased and the payments made. The Committee also took the view that the high seas sale agreements, allegedly executed, have not been proved; as they were drawn on Indian stamp papers and not signed on each page.

10. On earlier occasions, the matter was remitted thrice by this Court to the Authority under the Act, 1966, to reconsider the petitioners’ claims relating to “sale on high seas”, i.e., outside the “market area”. On all occasions, the Authority has passed the orders rejecting the petitioners' claims that they sold notified agricultural produce on “high seas”.

11. Though the impugned orders are appealable under the provisions of the Act, 1966, the Writ Petitions are considered on merits, notwithstanding the appellate remedy, given the fact that the dispute relates to the transactions of the year 2006, and despite three remands, it appears that Authority has not decided the controversy by assigning valid reasons except expressing certain doubts about the transactions urged by the petitioners. More than anything else, the petitioners have also raised a jurisdictional question, contending that the Authority under the Act, 1966 has no jurisdiction over the sale transactions in question.

12. In the background m