JUDGMENT :

Dr. D.P.Choudhury, J.

1. Challenge has been made to the illegal action of the Regulated Market Committee, Panposh, opposite party no.4 (hereinafter called the “the RMC”) for collecting market fee.

2. Since the above three writ petitions have got common question of law, they are being taken up together for disposal by this common judgment.

FACTS

3. The adumbrated facts of the petitioners are that the petitioners, in all the three writ petitions, being trading companies have got business dealing in wholesale and retail sale of various Dals, Pulses etcetera having their place of business at Rourkela in the district of Sundergarh. They used to purchase the goods from different places outside the State of Orissa and then being transported from those places by vehicle for delivery at the place of business of the petitioners. The transportation of goods from outside the State and other places in vehicles are accompanied with necessary documents such as copy of the cash/credit bill with statutory declaration in Form-„C? under the Central Sales Tax Act.

4. Be it stated that the opposite party no.4-RMC earlier was collecting Rs.200/- per vehicle entering into Rourkela through RMC, Panposh Check Gate in respect of different agricultural produce brought from outside the market area, but later on the opposite party no.4-RMC collected the market fee at RMC Check Gate, Panposh at the rate of 1% on the value of all incoming consignments passing through the check gates carrying Dals, Pulses etc. Undoubtedly, the agricultural produce were coming to the place of business of petitioners at Rouekala. As the Dals and Pulses are being purchased from outside the Orissa and outside the RMC area but entering the RMC area, such collection of market fee purportedly is illegal and improper. Not only this but also the Sub-Collector-cum-Chairman, Panposh RMC, in his letter dated 31.5.2003 informed the President of the Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Rourkela to inform the traders bringing agricultural produce to pay the market fee to RMC at the rate of 1% on the purchase value at gate point with effect from 7.6.2003. Accordingly, Rourkela Chamber of Commerce and Industries had informed the Director, Agriculture Marketing, Orissa, opposite party nos.3 and 4 to withdraw agricultural marketing fee at Rourkela since the impugned levy is not only undesirable and illegal but also causes loss and embarrassment to its members.

5. Be it stated that the avowed object of Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as “the Act, 1956”) is to protect the interest of the agriculturists growing crops and marketing the same to the traders, who in turn, exports them to other private and other areas and to stop the unfair practice by the wholesale traders in course of their transaction with the agricultural producers. In spite of the object of the Act, 1956, the opposite party no.4 continued to collect the market fee from the petitioners who purchased such produce from outside the State like Madras, Bombay, Hyderabad, Madhya Pradesh and other places and bring the same to the area of RMC, Panposh for onward wholesale trading.

6. Be it stated that the levy of fee is purportedly made by virtue of the power conferred under Section 11 of the Act. Since the agricultural produces are purchased by the petitioners from outside the State and brought to the market area of opposite party no.4, the same does not attract any liability whatsoever under Section 11 of the Act for their exigibility to market fee imposed by opposite party no.4. This matter is covered by the decision of this Court in the case of M/s.Ganesh Rice Mills and another –V- Attabira Regulated Market Committee and others; 1991 (II) OLR 58.

7. It is the rule of law that no fees and fiscal levy is imposable without authority of law as in the present case, the agricultural produce purchased by the petitioners from outside the State are not marketed inside the market area of RMC-Panposh and more so