Market Committees have the implied authority to levy and assess fees under the M.P. Agricultural Produce Markets Act despite the absence of explicit procedural rules.

1. This Full Bench has been constituted to hear this petition under Art.226 of the Constitution on a reference being made by a Division Bench of this Court which initially heard this petition. The Division Bench was of the opinion that there was a conflict between two Division Bench judgments of this Court, one reported in Roopchand v. K.U.M. Samiti, Raipur (1975 MP LJ 326) : (1975 Tax LR 1932) and the other delivered in Girwarlal v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Committee , (MP No. 37 of 1967 decided on 10th April, 1970). The matter was, therefore, placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of a Full Bench to hear this petition. That is how this petition came up for hearing before us.

2. The material facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows : The petitioner carried on, at the material time, the business of buying and selling agricultural produce at Petlawad. District Jhabua. Under the provisions of the M.P. Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 , the State Government constituted a Market Committee by the name of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Petalawad, hereinafter referred to as the 'Market Committee', for regulating the purchase and sale of agricultural produce in the market established under the provisions of that Act at Petalawad. On 1st June, 1973, M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' came into force. By S.82 of the Act, the M.P. Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 , was repealed, but the Market Committees constituted under that Act were to be deemed to have been constituted under the provisions of the Act. In pursuance of the powers conferred by S.19 of the Act, the Market Committee, Petalawad, levied market fees, and the petitioner was called upon to produce his account - books for assessing market fees payable by the petitioner. As the petitioner failed to produce the accounts, he was informed by the notice dated 16th April 1976 (annex. - F / 2) that in the event of his failure to produce accounts within a week of the receipt of that notice, an estimate of his transactions would be made as stated in the notice and market fees would be assessed on the basis of that estimate. The petitioner did not produce any account - books and made a representation (annex. - G / 3) to the Director of Agriculture that the Market Committee was not empowered to levy any market fees. However, before the respondent Market Committee could proceed to assess the petitioner, he filed the present petition praying for the issuance of a writ to prohibit the respondent Market Committee from making any recovery under the provisions of the Act.

3. The first contention advanced by Shri Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that S.21 of the Act no doubt empowered the Market Committee to make an assessment with regard to fees payable by a person under S.19 of the Act, if that person failed to produce accounts as directed but no manner having been prescribed as contemplated by S.19 of the Act, the Market Committee had no power to proceed to make best judgment assessment under S.21 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Girwarlal v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Committee (M.P. No. 37 of 1967).

4. To appreciate the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. S.19(1) of the Act empowers "every market committee to levy market fees on notified agricultural produce brought for sale or bought or sold in the market area." S.20 confers power on any officer or servant of the market committed empowered by the State Government in this behalf to order