SEN, J. —These six writ petitions raise common questions and therefore they are disposed of by this common order.

2. The petitioners, who are commission agents and grain merchants, challenge the validity of the levy of the market fee and the requirement of licensing of dealers by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chhabra, under sections 14 and 17 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1971.

3. The writ petitions fell into three groups. Writ petition Nos. 956, 959 and 960 of 1976 are directed against an order of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chhabra, dated April 28, 1975 requiring the licensing of dealers engaged in the business of purchase and sale of agricultural produce in the market area making a demand for payment of market fees i. e., before the establishment of the principal market yard at Chhabra or a sub-yard at Chhipabarod. Writ petitions Nos. 136 and 137 of 1977 challenge the validity of Notification No. F.10 (24)/Agr.Gr.-2/75 dated October 14, 1976, issued by the State Government under sec. 9(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to be "the Act") for the establishment of the principal market yard at Chhabra and sub-market yard at Chhipabarod. The petitioners in these writ petitions also claim refund of the market fee already paid for various periods. Writ petition No 154 of 1977 by a trader, challenges the levy of market fee, because there is at village Sarthal neither a principal market yard nor is a sub yard and also because no services are rendered to him by the Mandi Committee.

4. Writ Petitions Nos. 956, 959 and 960 of 1976 were filed during the course of arguments in M/s Karamchand & Co. vs. The State of Rajasthan S. B. Civil Writ Petition No 624 of 1975 and 189 other connected writ petitions before Joshi J. and were based on the ground that Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Chhabra, had established no principal market yard or sub market as required by law. On the strength of that averment, the petitioners secured an ad interim stay order restraining the Mandi Committee from recovering the market fee. In its reply filed in these writ petitions, the Mandi Committee controverted the facts that it had not established market-yard or sub-market-yard in the area, or that it was not providing any services. It placed on record Notification dated 14-10-1976 showing that the principal market yard at Chhabra and a sub market yard at Chhipabarod had been established for the area. The Mandi Committee asserted that it was rendering various services to the licensees who are doing their business in the principal market yard at Chhabra and the sub-market-yard at Chhipabarod and was providing services to the petitioners agriculturists and other businessman of that area. It further asserted that it had prepared a scheme for development of the Mandi, the site had been approved by the Authorities and it wa3 trying to purchase land for the construction of a market-yard. On 18-11-1976, the Mandi Committee applied for dismissal of the writ petitions. The matter came up before Joshi J on 25-9-1976 when the petitioners wanted time to file a reply. Despite the fact they were repeatedly given time, they have filed no reply. The case was adjourned to 16-11-1976 then to 23-11-1976 again to 8-8-1977 and to 25-7-1977. It is obvious that by the establishment of the principal market yard and sub-market yard by the Notification of the State Government dated 14-10 1976, the writ petitions have become infructuous.

5. Writ petition No. 154 of 1977 by M/s Madanlal Radhey Ballabh is not by a trader at Sarthal, as asserted. It is averred in paragraph No. 1 of the petition that the petitioner is a partnership firm having its headquarters at Chhi-pabarod. The petition is supported by an affidavit sworn in by Radha Ballabh, one of the partners of the firm, to that effect. Respondent No. 2, in paragraph No.l of its reply, has admitted the fact. There is, therefore, no controversy that M/s Madan lal Radha Ballabh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document