The right of the Market Committee to recover license fees corresponds to the duty of the traders to obtain a license before trading in the market area. As the Act did not provide for any remedy regarding that right, the general principle ubi jus ibi remedium applied, and the Market Committee was entitled to file a suit to recover the license fees as damages for the breach of the duty imposed on the traders by the Act.

Headnote:
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE - LICENCE FEES - RECOVERY - MAINTAINABILITY OF SUIT - BOMBAY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETS ACT, 1939 - RULES AND BYE-LAWS - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:

The Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sholapur, filed five suits against five traders for recovery of Rs. 100/- each as license fees or damages for trading in the market yard without obtaining a license during the period from September 1, 1963 to August 31, 1964. The traders defended the suits contending that the rules under which the license fees were claimed were ultra vires and that the suit was not tenable in the Civil Court. The trial court decreed the suits, but the District Judge reversed the decision, holding that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in the absence of a specific provision in the Act enabling the Market Committee to sue to recover license fees from traders who traded without a license.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court allowed the revision applications filed by the Market Committee and restored the decrees passed by the trial court. The court held that the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, and the rules and bye-laws framed thereunder did not provide any remedy for the recovery of license fees. The prosecution of traders for trading without a license was intended for the benefit of the public and not as a remedy for the recovery of license fees. The right of the Market Committee to recover license fees corresponded to the duty of the traders to obtain a license before trading in the market area. As the Act did not provide for any remedy regarding that right, the general principle ubi jus ibi remedium applied, and the Market Committee was entitled to file a suit to recover the license fees as damages for the breach of the duty imposed on the traders by the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit for recovery of license fees or damages was maintainable by the Market Committee? 2. Whether the rule providing for a license fee of Rs. 100/- per year, irrespective of the nature of trade or business carried on by the licensee, was invalid, ultra vires, or illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, and the rules and bye-laws framed thereunder did not provide any remedy for the recovery of license fees. 2. The prosecution of traders for trading without a license was intended for the benefit of the public and not as a remedy for the recovery of license fees. 3. The right of the Market Committee to recover license fees corresponded to the duty of the traders to obtain a license before trading in the market area. 4. As the Act did not provide for any remedy regarding that right, the general principle ubi jus ibi remedium applied, and the Market Committee was entitled to file a suit to recover the license fees as damages for the breach of the duty imposed on the traders by the Act.
Final Decision: The revision applications were allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge were set aside, and the decrees passed by the trial court in all the five cases were restored.

JUDGMENT - 1. These five applications in revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are filed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sholapur, constituted under the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, and now governed by the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1963, and will be hereinafter referred to as "the Market Committee". The Market Committee filed five suits, from which the above revisions arise, against five traders of Sholapur in August, 1965, claiming to recover from each of them Rs. 100/- as licence-fees, or in the alternative, as damages with interest at 12 p. c. p. a. as the defendants traded in the yards of the Market Committee without obtaining respectively a licence during the period from September 1, 1963 to August 31, 1964.

2. It was alleged in the plaint, that all the defendants in five suits, who are dealing in the agricultural produce as defined by the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, within the market area as traders, were purchasing and selling agricultural produce in the market yard, and hence they were bound to obtain a licence after paying licence-fees to the Market Committee, as laid down by Sections 4, 5-A and 20 of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 and Rule 65 (7) of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1941. The plaintiff Market Committee further alleged that in the year 1963-64, without obtaining licences required under the Act and the Rules, the respective defendants carried on the trade in the market yard in the agricultural produce. On January 30, 1964, a notice was sent to each of them to obtain necessary licence. Ignoring the said notice and in violation of the law, the defendants continued that trade in the market-yard. Hence the Market Committee prosecuted them in respect of the transactions of trade done by each of the traders and they were convicted on May 13, 1965 under Section 4 (2), read with Section 20, Rule 65 (7) framed under the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15/- each, or in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 days.

3. The plaintiff Market Committee submitted that the Market Committee had a right to recover from every trader, buying or selling agricultural produce within the market area or yard of the Market Committee as licence-fees Rs. 100/- under the Marketing Act, and further that as the defendants traded without paying the licence-fees, the Market Committee was entitled to recover the licence fees as damages. In spite of this and notwithstanding the conviction of the defendants, the defendants did not care to pay the licence fees for the year 1963-64. Hence a suit was filed for recovery of licence fees from each of the defendants.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants contending, inter alia, that the rules under which the licence fees were claimed were ultra vires and that the suit was not tenable in the Civil Court. The learned Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division) Sholapur, framed three issues in the light of the pleadings of the parties :

"(1) Whether the remedy of a suit for recovery of licence fees or compensation is available to the plaintiff?

(2) Is the new rule providing for licence fee of Rs. 100/- per year, irrespective of the nature of trade or business carried on by the licencee, invalid, ultra vires or illegal, for any reason mentioned in the defendants written-statement?

(3) Whether the present suit is maintainable in view of the fact that the defendant was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced for doing business without licence?"

On a careful consideration of the provisions of the Act and the Rules, the learned Civil Judge decided all the issues in favour of the Market Committee. The learned Civil Judge relied on the decision of this Court in Thana Borough Municipality v. Akbaralli Hansanali, 58 Bom LR 636 and held that as the Market Committee was entitled to recover the licence fees and it suffered loss by no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1972 Supreme(Bom) 118

Cases Referred (1)