Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.S. Oka, Riyaz I. Chagla, JJ.
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. - Appellant
Vs.
BOMBAY METROPOLITAN REGION IRON AND STEEL MARKET COMMITTEE - Respondent
Writ Petition Nos. 1650 and 1632 of 1997
Decided On : 09-02-2018
For The Petitioner:Mr. S.C. Naidu a/w Mr. Rakesh Mandavkar and Ms. Amrita Dubey i/by Mr. Bhavesh V. P Panjuani i/by M/s. Mulla and Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe, Mr. S.C. Naidu a/w Mr. H.N. Vakil a/w Mr. Rushil Mathur i/by M/s. Mulla and Mulla and Craigie Blunt and Caroe, Advocates.
For The Respondent: Mr. N.N. Bhadrashete, Mr. A.B. Vagyani, G.P. a/w Mr. Manish M. Pabale, AGP and Mr. R.S. Sawant, A.A.G.P. and Ms. G.R. Golatkar, A.A.G.P.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 14, 19 and 226 - Bombay Metropolitan Region Specified Commodities Market Act, 1983 – Sections 4, 11, 8, 2, 3, 5, 34, 35, 68 and 69 - Bombay Village Panchayat Act, 1958 - Section 126 - Acquired A Plot Of Land - Issues which arise in these two petitions are more or less identical and hence same are taken up for hearing together - In both petitions there is a challenge to provisions of metropolitan region specified commodities markets enactment of bye-laws with retrospective effect to provide for levy and collection of registration fee and market fee and validation and continuance act - As far as writ petition is concerned petitioner acquired a plot of land under an agreement of lease executed by city and industrial development corporation of limited - Said plot of land is also situated at revenue village - In this writ petition also petitioner has set out details of development work carried out on said plot by petitioner - In both petitions case made out by petitioners is that under relevant clauses of lease deeds petitioners are required to pay service charges to CIDCO towards cost of establishing and maintaining civic amenities such as roads water drainage conservancy of said land etc - Details of service charges paid by petitioners to CIDCO have been also set out in petition - Case of petitioners in both petitions is that amenities to said plots were not provided either by CIDCO or by first respondent market committee - Held, While rendering services in market area for purposes of facilitating transactions of purchase and sale with a view to achieve objects of marketing legislation it is not necessary to confer whole of benefit on licensees but some special benefits must be conferred on them which have a direct close and reasonable correlation between licensees and transactions - That while conferring some special benefits on licensees it is permissible to render such service in market which may be in general interest of all concerned with transactions taking place in market - That spending amount of market fees for purpose of augmenting agricultural produce its facility of transport in villages and to provide other facilities meant mainly or exclusively for benefit of agriculturists is not permissible on ground that such services in long run go to increase volume of transactions in market ultimately benefiting traders also - Such an indirect and remote benefit to traders is in no sense a special benefit to them - That element of quid pro quo may not be possible or even necessary to be established with arithmetical exactitude but even broadly and reasonably it must be established by authorities who charge fees that amount is being spent for rendering services to those on whom falls burden of fee - Order Accordingly.
A. S. Oka, J.
The issues which arise in these two Petitions are more or less identical and hence, the same are taken up for hearing together. In both the Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, there is a challenge to the provisions of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Specified Commodities Markets (Regulation of Location) (Enactment of bye-laws with retrospective effect to provide for levy and collection of the Registration Fee and Market Fee and Validation and Continuance) Act, 1997 (for short "the Validating Act").
2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1650 of 1997 is the Steel Authority of India which is a Government of India Enterprise. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1632 of 1997 is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The first respondent has been constituted under the provisions of Bombay Metropolitan Region Specified Commodities Market (Regulation of Location) Act, 1983 (for short "the said Act of 1983"). The first respondent Market Committee is constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the said Act of 1983. Under Section 34 of the said Act of 1983, a power is vested in Market Committees constituted under Section 8(1) to levy and collect fees.
3. As far as the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1650 of 1997 is concerned, under an agreement to lease dated 29th December, 1983 a plot of land admeasuring about 1,67,900 square metres was allotted to the petitioner by the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (for short "CIDCO"). The said plot of land is situated at revenue village Kalamboli, District Raigad. It is claimed in the petition that the said plot was developed by the petitioner by spending a huge amount. As far as Writ Petition No. 1632 of 1997 is concerned, the petitioner acquired a plot of land admeasuring 72,000 square metres under an agreement of lease dated 31st March, 1982 executed by the City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (for short "CIDCO"). The said plot of land is also situated at revenue village Kalamboli in Raigad District. In this Writ Petition also, the petitioner has set out the details of the development work carried out on the said plot by the petitioner.
4. In both the Petitions, the case made out by the petitioners is that under relevant clauses of the lease deeds, the petitioners are required to pay service charges to CIDCO towards the cost of establishing and maintaining civic amenities such as roads, water drainage, conservancy of the said land, etc. The details of the service charges paid by the petitioners to CIDCO have been also set out in the Petition. The case of the petitioners in both the Petitions is that the amenities to the said plots were not provided either by CIDCO or by the first respondent Market Committee.
5. On 2nd March, 1990 a meeting of the first respondent was held in which it was decided to charge market fee at the rate of Rs. 9/per square metre on all warehousing plot holders/stockyard holders with effect from 1st September, 1989. Accordingly, a demand was made to the petitioners. The petitioners in both the Petitions requested the first respondent to reconsider its decision as the petitioners were paying service charges to the CIDCO. Reference is made in both the Petitions to various demands made and action taken for non-payment of market fee to first respondent. Being aggrieved by the action of demanding market fee at the rate of Rs. 9/- per square metre, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1650 of 1997 filed Writ Petition No. 370 of 1994 in this Court. The said Petition was disposed of by an order dated 2nd December, 1994. The Writ Petition was disposed of by recording a statement of the first respondent that the first respondent was withdrawing the demands made with regard to the market fee. As far as the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1650 of 1997 is conc
