Back
2009 (II) OLR — 89
DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, C.J. AND B.N. MAHAPATRA, J.
Somanath Mohapatra and Anr....Petitioners
Versus
State of Orissa and 3 Ors....Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No.3530 of 2003
Decided on 6th May, 2009.
Opposite party No.2 vide notice dated 16.03.2003 (Annexure-12) directed the petitioners to pay market fees to the tune of Rs. 13,46,978/- for the years 1994-2003 by 31.03.2003. In the said notice, no basis was also indicated as to how the Hat days are fixed and market fee per day is determined. No opportunity of hearing was also afforded to the petitioners before assessing the petitioners for such huge amount of market fees for the year 2002-2003 so also for the preceding eight years. No reason whatsoever was assigned as to why the opposite party no.2 had not taken any step for collection of such market fee during past eight years. The opposite party No.2 could not able to satisfy us as to under which provision of the law such amount of fees was demanded from the petitioners. (Para - 13)
2. ORISSA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETS ACT, 1956 - Sec. 4(3) - Only after a declaration, as required under Sec. 4(1) is made, no local authority or person shall set up, establish or continue or allow to be set up, establish or continue any place for the purpose of sale and purchase of any agricultural produce within the market area or within a distance thereof to be notified in the gazette - Only after notification is made under Sec. 4(1), Section 4 (3) comes into operation.
In the instant case, no notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act, 1956 was published in the gazette/news¬papers in respect of the entire revenue subdivision of Jagat¬singhpur, which covers village Chatra and in absence of any such notification the provisions of Section 4(3) is not attracted. Hence, it cannot be said that the petitioners have violated the provisions of Section 4(3) of the Act, 1956. (Para - 11)
3. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - Any order passed by an authority/tribunal/Court must be supported by reasons - Even in administrative matters the reasons should be recorded, as it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass a speaking and reasoned order. (Para - 13)
4. ORISSA AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETS ACT, 1956 - The purpose of such enactment is to provide better regulation for buying and selling of agricultural produces and establishment of markets for such agricultural produces in the State of Orissa - The Act, 1956 is applicable only to market or Hat where agricultural produces are brought and sold subject to the proviso enumerated in Section 4 of the said Act. (Para - 12)
JUDGMENT
B.N. MAHAPATRA, J. — This writ petition has been filed for quashing the notices dated 10.03.2003 issued under Annexure-10 (wrongly referred to as Annexure-9 in the writ petition) and 16.03.2003 (Annex.-12) by which the petitioners have been direct¬ed by the opposite parties-authorities under the provisions of Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956 (hereinafter called ‘the Act, 1956’) not to run the Somanath Hat as it was in contravention of the provisions of Section 4(3) of the Act, 1956 and to pay the dues of market fees to the tune of Rs.13,46,978/ for the years 1994 to 2003.
2. The factual matrix giving rise to the present writ application is that petitioners claim that they along with others are the owners of an ancient Hat called “Somanath Hat” estab¬lished in the year 1903 in village Chatra within Jagatsinghpur Municipal area. It mostly runs by the retailers who use to sell stationary articles, clothing, ornaments, iron goods, fertiliz¬ers, etc. The said Hat is held twice in a week on private lands belonging to the petitioners as well as on some lands belonging to the deity Somnath Mahadev. Petitioners also claim that they being the tenant of the said deity use to pay rent in shape of vegetables, grams, etc. for Bhoga and Prasad of the deity. The area of the said Hat had been recorded in the name of their forefathers and subsequently in the names of the petitioners in the successive Record of Right.
After constitution of Jagatsinghpur Notified Area Council (for short, “the NAC”) in the year 1973, the said NAC vide its notice dated 19.1.1973 under Sections 297 and 298 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950 (hereinafter called, “the OM Act”) called upon the petitioners to file an application for obtaining licence for running the said Hat. Petitioners challenged the said notice by filing a writ petition bearing O.J.C. No.169 of 1975 and got an interim order in their favour. According to the petitioners, since they got the matter settled outside the Court, the said writ petition was withdrawn where after the NAC did not collect any licence fee. On 13.9.2002, petitioner No.1 applied for li¬cence as provided under Section 297 of the O.M. Act before the Collector & District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur, for running the said Hat, which is still pending consideration. On 8.3.2003, the Regulated Market Committee (for short, “RMC”), Jagatsinghpur opened a Market Yard (Krusaka Bazar) and informed the public that Ac.2.00 of land had been notified as market yard pursuant to the Govt. Notification dated 5.6.1994 along with a list of agricul¬tural produces for sale and purchase only at the said market yard and not in any other area within a radius of eight kilometers from the market yard. According to the petitioners, the said earmarked market yard being a pond cannot serve the purpose of the general public. The Chairman, RMC, Jagatsinghpur-opposite party No.2, vide notice dated 10.3.2003 (Annexure-10) restrained the petitioners from running the said Somanath Hat illegally in contravention of the provisions of Section 4(3) of the Act, 1956 after Government Notification dated 18.1.1982 made under Section 4 of the Act, 1956 and Notification dated 5.6.1994. In response to the said notice, the petitioners on 13.3.2003 replied that they had not violated any provision of the Act, 1956 by running the said Hat. Immediately thereafter, opposite party No.2 issued another notice dated 16.3.2003 (Annexure-12) fixing the market fee to the tune of Rs.13,46,978/- and directed the petitioners to pay the same by 31.3.2003. Subsequent thereto, opposite party No.2 asked the petitioners to refrain from allowing purchase and sale of notified agricultural produces in the said Somanath Hat and to take steps for prevention of such sale and purchase there¬in. Hence this petition.
3. Shri S.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that no valid notification has ever been issued by the Government under the provisions of the Act
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
