Back
2020 Supreme(All) 125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.
M/s Ganesh Grain Store, Raniganj Bazar Ballia and others - Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Misc. Single Nos. 3225 of 2008, 3271 of 2008, 3272 of 2008
Decided On : 21-01-2020
For the Petitioner: Shafiq Mirza.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., N.C. Mehrotra.
Point of law:
Definition of 'Director' includes any other Officer authorized by Director to perform all or any of his functions under Act, 1964.
Headnote:
U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Act, 1964 – Section 32 – Petitioner has also prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash order issued by Additional Legal Adviser informing Regional Deputy Director, Mandi Samiti, Varanasi that vide order he has been authorized to decide Revision under Section 32 of Act, 1964. Petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent-1 to exercise its power under Section 33B of Act, 1964 and also prayed that Section 20 of Act, 1964 be declared ultra vires and unconstitutional –Power of Revision when delegated to Director by virtue of Section 33 becomes a function to be performed by Director under Act, 1964 and, therefore, Director can authorize any other Officer to perform all or any of his functions under Act, 1964 which includes delegated powers to be performed by Director under Section 32 of Act, 1964 – Held, power of Revision when delegated to Director by virtue of Section 33 becomes a function to be performed by Director under Act, 1964 and, therefore, Director can authorize any other Officer to perform all or any of his functions under Act, 1964 which includes delegated powers to be performed by Director under Section 32 of Act, 1964. In view thereof I find myself unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that power exercised by Deputy Director in deciding Revision is bad in law as he had no jurisdiction to decide Revision and Director had no power to authorize Deputy Director to decide Revision Petition dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
Power of Revision when delegated to Director by virtue of Section 33 becomes a function to be performed by Director under Act, 1964 and, therefore, Director can authorize any other Officer to perform all or any of his functions under Act, 1964 which includes delegated powers to be performed by Director under Section 32 of Act, 1964. In view thereof I find myself unable to accept the contention of learned counsel for petitioners that power exercised by Deputy Director in deciding Revision is bad in law as he had no jurisdiction to decide Revision and Director had no power to authorize Deputy Director to decide Revision.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Shafiq Mirza, Advocate, for petitioner; and, learned Standing Counsel and Sri N.C. Mehrotra, Advocate, for respondents in all these writ petitions.
2. Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3225 of 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “WP-1”), M/s. Ganesh Grain Store, Raniganj Bazar, Ballia has filed WP-1 under Article 226 of Constitution praying for issue of a writ of certiorari and quash order dated 31.03.2008 (Annexure-6 to WP-1) passed by Sri R.K. Arya, Deputy Director (Administration), Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Varanasi dismissing petitioner's Revision No. 993 of 2007 submitted under Section 32 of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1964”). Petitioner has also prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash order dated 14.09.2007 (Annexure-9 to WP-1) issued by Additional Legal Adviser informing Regional Deputy Director, Mandi Samiti, Varanasi that vide order dated 13.08.1999 he has been authorized to decide Revision under Section 32 of Act, 1964. Petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding respondent-1 to exercise its power under Section 33B of Act, 1964 and also prayed that Section 20 of Act, 1964 be declared ultra vires and unconstitutional.
3. Facts in brief, giving rise to WP-1, are that vide Government Order dated 24.12.2001 (Annexure-1 to WP-1) two per cent exemption in Mandi Fee and half percent rebate in Development Cess was granted, besides two per cent concession in Trade Tax. Petitioner conducted business in the Financial Years (hereinafter referred to as “F.Y.”) 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06. The exemption aforesaid was granted for the F.Y. 2001 to 2006. Therefore, with the end of scheme, petitioner's business also stood closed. However, petitioner received a letter dated 30.04.2007 issued by Mandi Samiti, Ballia (respondent-5), raising demand of Rs. 10,22,622.90 stating that petitioner did not deposit the bill of loading/shipment H Form Second Copy and, therefore it was liable to pay the aforesaid amount. A reminder demand notice dated 22.05.2007 directing petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount was also received. Thereafter, petitioner filed Revision against the aforesaid orders before Director, Mandi Samiti vide memo of Revision dated 31.07.2007. Before filing Revision, petitioner filed Writ Petition before this Court challenging demand notice in which an interim order was also passed but when petitioner availed statutory remedy of Revision, Writ Petition (MB) No. 6858 of 2007 was dismissed vide judgment dated 17.09.2007 with a direction to competent authority to decide Revision within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy. Consequently, impugned revisional order has been passed on 31.03.2008 by Deputy Director rejecting petitioner's Revision.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Shafiq Mirza, in WP-1 has challenged the aforesaid order of Revision on the ground that Deputy Director had no authority or jurisdiction to decide Revision inasmuch Director, Mandi Samiti himself was exercising delegated power and had no authority to further delegate or sub-delegate his power, therefore, sub-delegation by Director to Deputy Director is wholly without jurisdiction. In this regard, he placed reliance on Sections 2(h), 26-I, 27, 33 and 33-A of Act, 1964 and Rule 135 of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 1965”).
5. On behalf of Mandi Samiti, Counter Affidavit has been filed stating that validity of Section 20 of Act, 1964 has been upheld by this Court. Further, power to decide Revision has been conferred by Board upon Additional Director, Deputy Director as well as Regional Deputy Director.
6. On the contrary, Sri N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Mahdi Samiti, submitted that Board has delegated the power with authority of further sub-delegation and therefore, Deputy Director has validly exercised revisional power. He placed reliance on Supreme Court's judgment in Heinz I
