SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 242

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.D. DHANUKA, V.G. BISHT, JJ.
The Maharashtra State Market Committee Co-Operative Federation Ltd. – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Agriculture – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 10289 of 2019
Decided On : 08-06-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Girish S. Godbole, Mr. Drupad S. Patil, Mr. B.G. Patil, Mr. Dheeraj Patil.
For the Respondents: Mr. R.V. Govilkar, Mrs. Ashwini A. Purav, Mr. Rajesh Choudhary, Mr. S.S. Lanke, Mr. Jitendra Gautam.

Point of Law: Guidelines for Price Support Scheme – guidelines issued by the Government of India to refuse to comply with its obligation to pay the market fees to the petitioner

Headnote:

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 - Guidelines for Price Support Scheme – Fees and charges payable – Distinction between private purchaser and nodal agency - Guidelines issued by the Government of India to refuse to comply with its obligation to pay the market fees to the petitioner

Finding of the Court:

If provisions of the APMC Act, 1963 are read with PSS Guidelines, then it would be clear that the Market Committees are entitled for fees and charges payable to them under Section 31 for services provided to seller and purchaser. Section 31 does not make any distinction between the private purchaser and nodal agency who is purchasing the goods - guidelines issued by the Government of India to refuse to comply with its obligation to pay the market fees to the petitioner. In our view, since the said guidelines are not at all applicable to the petitioner for seeking exemption from payment of market fees, no reliance thereon can be placed by the respondent no.4 on such guidelines to avoid its statutory liabilities

Result: Ordered accordingly

JUDGMENT :

V.G. BISHT, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

2. By this Petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court with following prayers:

    (a) Writ of This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the clause No. B (ii) of Chapter II of Guidelines for Price Support Scheme (PSS), being Exhibit B to this Petition.

(b) The Hon’ble Court be pleased to declare that the Market Committee constituted under the provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 are entitled for market fees on purchases of agricultural commodities made under Price Support Scheme (PSS) by Central and State Agencies in procurement/purchase centres managed by the Marketing Committees in their respective Market Areas.

(c) This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondent No. 4 to forthwith pay Market Fees payable to the Marketing Committees under provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation ) Act, 1963.

(d) Pending hearing and final disposal of petition, the execution, implementation, operation and effect of clause No. B (ii) of Chapter II of Guidelines for Price Support Scheme (PSS), being Exhibit B to this Petition be stayed.

(e) Any other just and equitable orders be passed in the interest of justice.

3. The petitioner is a Federation of Agricultural Produce Market Committees in Maharashtra registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. More than 290 Market Committees are the members of the said Federation. The respondent No. 3 is a Directorate of Marketing constituted under the provisions of Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short “APMC Act, 1963”). The respondent No. 4-NAFED is one of the Central Nodal Agencies for procurement of 16 notified agricultural commodities of oilseeds, pulses and cotton under Price Support Scheme (PSS) and continued to be the sole Central Nodal Outright Procurement Agency of pulses and oilseeds under PSS of Government of India. The respondent No. 5 is an apex society for agricultural marketing and processing co-operative societies. One of the function of the respondent No. 5 is procurement of food grains under Minimum Support Scheme of Government of India. The respondents are thus “State” and/or “other authorities” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

4. According to petitioner, in order to develop and regulate marketing of agricultural and other produce in market areas and markets and in order to confer powers on Market Committees to establish market fund for various purposes, the State of Maharashtra enacted the APMC Act, 1963. The petitioner then contends that although the PSS is in existence in India for more than three decades, there were no Guidelines to regulate the PSS operation. Taking into consideration the necessity to prepare comprehensive Guidelines for effective implementation of the scheme to ensure that the farmers are benefited and to put in place a system of efficient marketing, development of non-traditional/new markets, processing of agricultural produce for value addition and the sales through network of retail points, the Government of India, through Ministry of Agriculture Department of Agriculture & Co-operation issued Guidelines (Exhibit-B) for PSS.

5. The petitioner further contends that as per the said Guidelines, the respondent No. 4 i.e. NAFED is one of the Central Nodal Agencies for procurement of 16 notified agricultural commodities of oilseeds and pulses under PSS. It procures stocks under PSS directly from the farmers through its co-oper

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top