PATNA HIGH COURT
Sachchidanand Jha and P.N.Yadav JJ.
Jagarnath Durga Dutt
Versus
Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Committee
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4528 of 1991 ; 5606 of 1991 ;
Decided On : JUNE 26, 2003
Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act - Competence of Bihar Agricultural Marketing Board to fix guidelines for levy of charges in respect of occupation of shops and godowns at market yard - Sec. 15, 4, 5, 6, 27, 29, 30, 98, 33-J, 35, 37, 38, 26, 27-B - The court discussed the authority of the Board and its relationship with the Market Committees, the binding nature of the Board's directives on the Market Committees, and the distinction between the Market Committee as a body corporate and as a managing committee. The judgment also addressed the nature of the relationship between the parties, whether it was a case of lease or licence, and the validity of the levy of occupational charges for occupation of shops and godowns at market yards.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved the competence of the Bihar Agricultural Marketing Board to fix guidelines for levy of charges in respect of occupation of shops and godowns at the market yard, and the validity of the demand notice and certificate proceeding for realization of the dues by the concerned Market Committees. The petitioners, traders carrying wholesale business of sale and purchase of food grains, challenged the authority of the Board and/or its Managing Director to fix rent, claiming that only the Market Committee could fix the rent by written agreement. The respondents contended that the traders were paying rent pursuant to an agreement executed with the Market Committee and started objecting only after it was enhanced.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the directives of the Board or its Managing Director are binding on the Market Committees, and the Market Committee as a body corporate has the authority to let out premises to traders and fix occupational charges. The court determined that the relationship between the parties was that of licensor and licensee, and the payment made by the traders could be termed as occupational charges for occupation of the shops and godowns. The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the petitioners cannot question the validity of the levy as they had availed of the facilities without any duress, compulsion, or demur, and remained in occupation of the premises.
Issues: The issues involved the competence of the Bihar Agricultural Marketing Board to fix guidelines for levy of charges in respect of occupation of shops and godowns at the market yard, the validity of the demand notice and certificate proceeding for realization of the dues by the concerned Market Committees, and the nature of the relationship between the parties, whether it was a case of lease or licence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the directives of the Board or its Managing Director are binding on the Market Committees, and the Market Committee as a body corporate has the authority to let out premises to traders and fix occupational charges. The court determined that the relationship between the parties was that of licensor and licensee, and the payment made by the traders could be termed as occupational charges for occupation of the shops and godowns. The court also stated that the petitioners cannot question the validity of the levy as they had availed of the facilities without any duress, compulsion, or demur, and remained in occupation of the premises.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the petitioners cannot question the validity of the levy as they had availed of the facilities without any duress, compulsion, or demur, and remained in occupation of the premises.
Sachhidanand Jha, J.
1. This batch of seven writ petitions involving same dispute has been heard together. The dispute relates to competence of the Bihar Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) to fix guidelines for levy of the charges in respect of occupation of the shops and godowns at the market yard of different Market Committees and the validity of the demand notice including the certificate proceeding arising therefrom for realisation of the dues by the concerned Market Committees. The dispute arises in the context of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960.
2. The Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act or the Market Act) was enacted to regulate buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for agricultural produce in the State of Bihar and for matters connected therewith. sec. 15 of the Act inter alia prohibits sale or purchase of any agricultural produce within the meaning of Sec. 2(1) (a) of the Act by any person at any place in the market area other than the relevant principal market yard or sub-market yard or yards established therein, except retail sale/ purchase of such quantity thereof as may be prescribed for personal consumption. sec. 4 empowers the State Government to declare after preliminary notification u/s. 3 and considering the objections thereto the area specified in such notification or any portion thereof to be a market area for the purpose of the Act in respect of all or any of the kinds of agricultural produce specified in the notification. sec. 5 provides for principal market yard and one or more sub-market yard or yards for each market area notified u/s. 4. sec. 6 provides for the Market Committee for every market area. sec. 27 empowers the Market Committee to levy and collect market fee on the agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area at the rate specified therein. Secs. 29 and 30 provide for Market Committee Fund and its application for the purposes mentioned therein. Reference may also be made at this stage to Rule 98 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1975 which obliges traders to obtain licence, and its renewal, on payment of the prescribed fee.
3. The representative facts may be noticed from C.W.J.C. No. 5606/91. There are two petitioners in this case. They are traders carrying wholesale business of sale and purchase of food grains notified as agricultural prodeuce within the meaning of sec. 2 (1) (w) read with sec. 2(1)(a) of the Market Act. The case of the petitioners is that the traders are not required to pay anything else than the market fee payable u/s. 27 of the Act and the licence fee payable under Rule 98 of the Rules, in the name of rent or occupational charges for the occupation of shops and godowns situate at the market yard. However, they were forced to execute lease deeds in respect of the premises stipulating payment of fixed rent @ Rs. 250 per month. Demands for arrears were raised and certificate proceedings were initiated for its realisation. On 2-9-1988 the Managing Director of the Board issued directives in the matter of fixation of rent in respect of buildings, godowns etc. situate at the market yards. According to the petitioners the Board and/or its Managing Director has no power to fix rent. It is the market committee which can fix the rent by written agreement duly executed in the manner laid down in sec. 31 of the Act vide decision in the case of Syed Ezaz Ahmad V/s. State of Bihar, 1992(2) BLJ 736. Enhancement of rent is not permissible in view of the provisions of Transfer of Property. Act, 1882 and Bihar Building (Lease, Rent, Eviction and Control) Act, 1981 (in short, the BBC Act) without taking recourse to the procedure laid down therein, Indeed, the Market Act does not contain any provision for determination of rent/occupational charges. In any view of the matter, the term of the market committee having expired, with the passage
Amrit Varsha Dainik V/s. Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board
Dhirendra Kumar Akela V/s. Bihar State Agriculture Marketing Board And Ors.
Mahendra Prasad V/s. State Of Bihar
Ramji Prasad V/s. State Of Bihar And Ors.
Syed Ezaz Ahmad V/s. State Of Bihar
Dr. (Miss) Aletta Grace Bell V/s. Dr (Miss) S. Tirkey
Dwarka Das Marfatia & Sons V/s. Board Of Trustees, Bombay Port
Kasturi Lal And Ors. V/s. The State Of Bihar And Ors.
Marathwada University V/s. Seshrao Balwant Rao Chavan
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.