ORDER :

Vandana Kasrekar, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the orders dated 26/02/2018 and 8/10/2012, passed by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3.

2. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is a Limited Company engaged in the business of production of Certified Seeds since 1982 and holds valid registration certificate from the Dy. Director of Agriculture, Indore under the Seeds Control Order, 1983 and also holds a certificate of registration from Madhya Pradesh State Seeds Certification Agency, Bhopal.

3. That, during the course of its business, the petitioner purchased Breeder Seeds from various State/Central Agriculture Universities and produce Certified Seeds under the supervision of M.P. State Seed Certification agency and 'Truthfully Labelled Seeds" having equivalent certification standards of certified seeds. The first step of production is to distribute these breeder seeds to the listed scheduled farmers. The breeder seeds are sown and germinated under strict supervision of Statutory State Seed Certification Agency, set up under the Seeds Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as...."the Act"). The standardized seeds so obtained are called 'foundation seeds'. These foundation seeds are again supplied to the listed farmers variety-wise. The farmers sow these foundation seeds and after germination and harvesting, the lots are prepared. The lots of seeds which meet the minimum requirement of physical purity and germination percentage as per Section 6 of the Act are fumigated for preservation and the samples of each lot are tested in the State Seed laboratories. The approved lots are subject to the treatment with insecticides and pesticides at the time of packing. The seeds are called "Truthfully Labelled Seeds" having the same standard as those of Certified Seed.

4. That, on 24/11/2004, the respondent No. 3 issued Demand Notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to make the payment of a sum of Rs. 3,84,83,130/- being the amount of Mandi fees and a sum of Rs. 5,96,651/- an amount of Nirashrit Shulk within a period of 15 days. After receipt of notice, the petitioner vide its letter dated 13/12/2004 informed the respondent No. 3 that the petitioner is not liable to pay the Mandi fee because the petitioner is not a licensee and that the seed is not an Agricultural produce as notified under the Mandi Adhiniyam and the provisions of the Adhiniyam are not applicable to the petitioner Company. The petitioner further requested the respondent to give the basis of demand notice.

5. After receipt of the said reply, the respondent No. 3 vide its letter dated 20/12/2004 informed the petitioner that Section 69 of the Adhiniyam only exempt to the Certified seeds and the petitioner can get the benefit of exemption only after submitting the statement before the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, without deciding the controversy, the respondent No. 3 referred the matter to Tehsildar Sanwer for issuance of RRC. The Tehsildar, Sanwer on 19/07/2005 issued RRC under Section 146 of Land Revenue Code calling upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,90,79,791/- in respect of Mandi fee.

6. Against this RRC, the petitioner has approached to this Court by filing W.P. No. 3913/2005. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 7/04/2006 directing the respondent No. 3 to do the assessment before using any demand notice. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court, the respondent No. 3 had passed the Assessment Order on 8/12/2006, by which the earlier demand of Mandi fees reduced from Rs. 3,90,79,791/- to Rs. 90,74,186/-.Thus, by impugned notice, the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 90,74,186/-. Towards Mandi fees along with Nirashrit amount of Rs. 1,81,483/-.

7. Against the assessment order dated 8/12/2006, on 10/01/2007, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 61 of the Adhiniyam before the respondent No. 1. The said appeal has been filed firstly on the ground that no Mandi fees