( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 22. 7. 98 passed by the Mandi samiti. . . . Copy of which is Annexre - 2 to the petition and for a writ of madamus restraining the respondent from recovering the amount including interest under the aforesaid order and for restraining the respondents 3 to 5 from with holding issuing of Gate Passes or taking any coercive action against the petitioners in future. There was also a prayer in the petition for declaring the explanation to section 17 (iii) of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as Mandi adhiniyam) as ultra vires, but this prayers has not been pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

( 2 ) WE have heard Sri Shanti Bhusan learned counsel and Sri. Tarun agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri B. D. Mandhyan learned counsel for the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti,etah

( 3 ) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Come in corporated under the Indian Companies Act having its registered office at Mumbai. Earlier the business was being run by M/s Lipton india Ltd. Which was amalgamated with M/s Brook Band India Ltd. With effect from 7. 3. 1994, and this company in turn was amalgamated with the petitioner Company M/s Hindustan Lever Ltd. With effect from 21. 3. 1997.

( 4 ) THE petitioner Company is engaged in the manufacture, distribution/sale of serveral consumer products in its various factories located in different parts of India. The present relates to the petitioners factory at Etah in which it produce ghee.

( 5 ) IN paragraph 9 of the writ petition it has been mention that the sales and distribution system followed by the petition Company over the last about 40 years is uniform throughout India. . The consumer products which are manufactured at the petitioned factory are not sold at the factory gates but there is a stock transfer from the factory to the Company depots which are own leased / managed by the petitioner Company at its own costs and expenses through Agents called " Clearing and Forwarding Agents" (hereinafter called C. and F agents ). It is alleged that after the goods are manufactured at the factories, the petitioner Company makes a stock transfer of these goods to the Company Depots through trucks. At the Depots the goods are unloaded stored by C and F Agents for and on account of the petitioner company as per the terms of the Contractual Agency signed and executed between the petitioner company and the Candf agents. A sample copy on one such contract dated 21. 3. 1997 between the petitioner Company and one of the C. and F Agents located at agreement is Annexure - 4 to the petition.

( 6 ) IN paragraph 9 of the writ petition it is also alleged that at all times the property in the finished goods stored the depots always and exclusively vest with the petitioner Company and never with the C and f Agents. The C and F Agents are only hired for providing certain services viz. Unloading of goods from the trucks, storage of the goods at the depots of petitioner, despatch of goods by trucks to the re-distributor stockists as per the sale orders, raising first sale invoice behalf of the petitioner company in the name of the Re-distribution stockists, and collecting the payments of sale invoices cheques/demand drafts from the Re-distribution stockists draw as payable to the credit of the petitioner company. It is fully alleged that the first sale of the company products is made at the factory gate but always at the depot gate, which is and managed by the petitioner company through its C and F Agent This sale is made at the depot gate to the Re-distribution stockists, and the sale consideration for each and every invoce is directly received by the petitioner company from the Re-distribution stockists in its own Bank account maintained at the respective C and F Agents locations. It is further alleged that the sale consideration is never received by t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document