Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Sandhawalia and J.V.Gupta JJ.
Walaiti Ram Mahabir Parshad
Versus
State Of Punjab
Civil Writ Petition No. 5509 of 1981,
Decided On : NOVEMBER 25, 1983
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - VALIDITY OF SECTION 23-A OF THE PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETS (AMENDMENT) ACT 1981 - SECTION 23-A - VALIDITY OF RETAINING EXCESS MARKET FEE COLLECTED BY MARKET COMMITTEES - NO VALIDATION OF EXCESS MARKET FEE - BAR AGAINST REFUND OF EXCESS MARKET FEE - ONUS OF PROOF ON LICENSEES TO ESTABLISH NO RECOVERY FROM NEXT PURCHASER - NO INTRUSION INTO JUDICIAL FIELD.
Fact of the Case:
The Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Act 1981 inserted Section 23-A in the principal Act, allowing Market Committees to retain excess market fee collected from licensees if the burden of such fee was passed on to the next purchaser. Licensees challenged the constitutional validity of Section 23-A, arguing that it validated the levy of market fee at Rs. 3/- per hundred despite a Supreme Court judgment upholding the fee only up to Rs. 2/- per hundred.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Section 23-A did not validate the collection of market fee at Rs. 3/- per hundred but merely allowed Market Committees to retain excess fee where it had been recovered from next purchasers. The Court found that the licensees were entitled to recover the market fee from their next purchasers and that there was no reason to presume that they would not have availed themselves of this right. The Court also held that the onus of proof was on the licensees to establish that they had not recovered the excess market fee from next purchasers.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 23-A of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Act 1981 is constitutionally valid? 2. Whether Section 23-A validates the collection of market fee at Rs. 3/- per hundred? 3. Whether Market Committees can retain excess market fee collected from licensees if the burden of such fee was passed on to the next purchaser? 4. Whether the onus of proof is on the licensees to establish that they had not recovered the excess market fee from next purchasers?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Section 23-A is constitutionally valid as it does not validate the collection of excess market fee but merely allows Market Committees to retain excess fee where it had been recovered from next purchasers. 2. The Court held that Section 23-A does not validate the collection of market fee at Rs. 3/- per hundred as it only applies to excess market fee collected during the period between the promulgation of the earlier Act and its final striking down by the Supreme Court. 3. The Court held that Market Committees can retain excess market fee collected from licensees if the burden of such fee was passed on to the next purchaser. 4. The Court held that the onus of proof is on the licensees to establish that they had not recovered the excess market fee from next purchasers.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Section 23-A of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Act 1981 and directed that the individual cases be laid before a single Bench for decision on merits.
S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.
1. The the constitutional validity of Section 23-A recently inserted in the principal Act by the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Act 1981 (Punjab Act No. 7 of 1981) is the primary and indeed the core question in this set of fifteen cases which stand admitted to a hearing by the Division Bench.
2. The issues arising herein cannot be well appraised without reference to their somewhat tortuous legal background. Way back in 1961 the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act (hereinafter called the Act) was originally promulgated and Section 23 thereof authorised the Market Committees to levy ad valorem fee on agricultural produce bought sold by a licensee in the notified Market area at rate not exceeding Rupee 0.50.00 paise for every hundred pees. This scale of fee was retained till 1969 whereafter by Punjab Act No.25 1969 it was raised to Re. 1.00 per hundred and later by Punjab Act No. 17 of 1973 it was further escalated to Rupees.-s 1.50 per hundred and further by Punjab Act No. 13 of 1974 the fee was raised from Rs. 1.50 to Rs. 2.25 per hundred. This enhancement was challenged in this Court in M/s. Hanuman Dall and General Mills, Hissar V/s. State of Haryana, AIR 1976 Punj and Har 1 and the increase to Rs. 2.25 P. per hundred as struck down and the market fee was allowed to be maintained at the original rate of Rs. 1.50 per hundred. The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board went in appeal to the Supreme Court but meanwhile by Act No. 14 of 1975, the market fee was raised afresh from Rs. 1.50 to Rs. 2.20 per hundred but the Market Committees in Punjab were directed to charge the market fee at the rate of Rs. 2.00 per hundred with effect from the 23rd of August, 1975 only. However, in the year 1978 by Punjab Ordinance No. 2 of 1978 followed by Punjab Act No. 22 of 1978 maximum market fee leviable was again raised from Rs. 2.20 to Rs. 3.00 per hundred. This enhancement was inter alia challenged directly by the dealers of Punjab before their Lordships of the Supreme Court. By their exhaustive judgment in Kewal Krishan Puri V/s. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1008 the maximum market fee leviable up to Rupees 2.00 was maintained and any enhancement beyond that was struck down.
3. Meanwhile marketing fees at the enhanced rates which had not been sanctified had been collected and many licensees from Punjab filed a number of writ petitions in the Supreme Court for refund of the market fees collected above the authorised amount. These writ petitions were disposed of by their Lordship in M/s. Shiv Shanker Dal Mills V/s. State of Haryana, AIR 1980 SC 1037, wherein following a similar situation in The Newabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. V/s. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1152, they devised a scheme and issued nine precise guidelines with regard to the amounts claimed. In compliance with these directions the Registrar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court entertained claims for refund and processed and verified them. Apparently during the pendency of the proceedings the impugned provisions of the Act were promulgated on the 2nd of March, 1981.
4. The representative matrix of facts may be briefly taken from CWP 5509/1981 M/s. Walaiti Ram V/s. State of Punjab, The petitioner-firm is engaged in the business of purchase and sale of agricultural produce at Maur, district Bhatinda and is a licensee under the Act. In accordance with Rule 29 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules (1962). framed under the aforesaid Act the liability to pay the market fee is inter alia on the buyer if he is a licensee, and consequently the writ petitioners were responsible for the payment of market fee. The petitioning firm in the context of the history noted above had continued to pay market fee even at the enhanced rates which were not later upheld by the final Court and in accordance with the directions in M/s. Shiv Shanker Dal Mills case (supra) filed a claim for refund before the Registrar of the Punjab and
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
