The distinction between market fees and supervision charges, and the absence of statutory provision for interest recovery.

S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 12th April 2006, copy of which is at Annexure 'Z' to the petition.

2. That order has been passed by the third Respondent to this Writ Petition.

3. The Petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 carrying on its business from the registered office situated at Mumbai and the factory at Thane, District Thane.

4. The Petitioner claims to be manufacturing confectionery and food drinks which is extensively marketed and distributed throughout India. The first Respondent to the Petition is the State of Maharashtra through the department of Cooperation and Textiles.

5. The second Respondent is a Committee under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short 'the APMC Act').

6. The Petitioner does not dispute that the first Respondent has enacted the APMC Act as also the APMC (Regulation) Rules, 1967. The substantive provisions of the Act enable the Government to set up an Agricultural Produce Market Committee for the market areas of Mumbai and Thane. The second Respondent has been so established under Section 13(1A) of the APMC Act. There are Byelaws of the Mumbai APMC and which are made by the third Respondent under Sections 61 and 61A of the APMC Act read with Rules 120 and 121 of the Rules. The third Respondent is the Authority who has passed the impugned order and the fourth Respondent recovers the sum determined and adjudicated under that order as arrears of land revenue.

7. The Petitioner does not dispute that on 20th June, 1998, the Government of Maharashtra issued a notification which was duly published in the Official Gazette pursuant to the Section 4(1) of the APMC Act and declared that the marketing of the agricultural produce specified in the notification namely food grains, pulses, cereals, oilseeds, condiments, sugar, edible oil, dry fruits etc. shall be regulated under the APMC Act in the Bombay Market Area specified in the notification. Later on, the Government of Maharashtra issued another notification dated 16th January 1995 and duly published it in the Official Gazette, pursuant to Section 13(1A) (a) of the APMC Act and specified that the additional area of the whole of Thane Taluka of Thane District and 30 villages from Uran Taluka of Raigad District as area to be deemed as Bombay Marketing Area for the purpose of the APMC Act. Once the Petitioner does not dispute that the APMC Act confers a power in the State Government to establish a market committee namely the second Respondent and for the market areas specified in the notification, then, the constitution, establishment and powers of the second Respondent to act in accordance with the APMC Act is an issue which need not bother us.

8. It is claimed that from 16th January 1995 to 01st May 2000, Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not apply the provisions of the APMC Act, Rules and Byelaws to the Petitioner and no market fee, supervision cost and so called market charges were levied and collected from the Petitioner during that period. However, on or about 02nd May 2000, the road carrier carrying 175 boxes of cashew nuts purchased by the Petitioner in the State of Kerala for delivery therefrom to the Petitioner's factory at Thane was intercepted by the officers, servants of the second Respondent and market fee and supervision cost totaling Rs.6,405.60 was imposed. That amount was deposited and the argument is that it was without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Petitioner.

9. The claim is that from 01st January 2001, the Petitioner was not subjected to the imposition of any market fee, supervision cost and/or market charges under the Act, Rules and/or Byelaws by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

10. In January, 2001, the Petitioner received from the Respondent No.3 a notice dated 01st January 2001 alleging that the Respondent No.2 found that the Petitioner