The market committee is not empowered to levy fees in disputed cases without initiating adjudication proceedings, as per section 17 of the Act, even though the Act and rules do not prescribe any specific procedure for such proceedings.

( 1 ) THE six petitioners in this writ petition have raised the following issues: (i) whether the notification of the State Goverment no. 6715 dated December 21, 2000 issued under section 5 (2) of the W. B. Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1972 constituting the market committee for the area mentioned therein conforms to section 5 (1) of the Act; (ii) whether the notification of the State Government no. 6717 dated December 21. 2000 issued under section 4 (1) of the same act declaring the localities specified therein as the principal market yard and the sub-market yards conforms to provisions in section 2 (m)of the Act, (iii) whether the notification of the State Government dated february 1, 2002 issued under section 5 (3) of the same Act constituting the market committee conforms to provisions in section 5 (3) of that act, (iv) whether, assuming the market committee was duly constituted, it is empowered to function beyond the period of three years specified in section 5 (7) of that Act, and (v) whether without initiating any adjudication proceedings the market committee was empowered to levy fees from the petitioners who never admitted their liabilities.

( 2 ) I find that the first petitioner is the vice president of a society registered under the West Bengal Societies Registration Act, 1961. Question has arisen whether for the above-noted purposes the first petitioner has any right to approach the writ Court. Counsel says that the society intended to expouse the cause of its members some of whom are the remaining petitioners in the case.

( 3 ) IN my view, not being a juristic person or a person aggrieved by any action taken by the responsents against it, the society is not entitled to approach the writ Court for the above-noted purposes. It would have been entitled to sue through its office bearer concerned, had the respondents in the writ petition or any one of them taken any action against the society. That is not the case. Hence, I hold that the first petitioner, or for that matter the society, is not entitled to maintain the writ petition, though it is maintainable at the instance of the other petitioners.

( 4 ) AS to constitution of the market committee, as was done by the state Government by issuing the notification No. 6715 dated December 21, 2000, counsel for the petitioners contends that it is apparent on the face of the notification that for several market areas one market committee was constituted. He refers me to section 5 (1) of the Act and submits that according to mandate of the statute for every market area a market committee is to be constituted. According to him the notification contravenes provisions in section 5 (1) of the Act.

( 5 ) TO this, counsel for the market committee submits that in the market area only several police stations were included, and that it is not correct to say that for more than one market area one market committee was constituted by the notification in question. He refers me to the notification No. 6718 dated December 21, 2000, and says that that was issued declaring the market area concerned containing a large area falling within the jurisdiction of as many as eight police stations. He cites to me the apex Court decision in Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar and Co. and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Anr. , reported at 1980 supp. SCC 27.

( 6 ) I agree with counsel for the market committee that the notification No. 6715 constituting the market committee does not contravene provisions in section 5 (1) of the Act. It is true that there is some confusion about the expression "the market area noted against each" used in the notification; but once the notification is read and considered in the context of the other notification (No. 6718) declaring the market area itself, in my view, it cannot be said that in contravention of section 5 (1) for more than one market area one market committee was constituted.

( 7 ) IN the decision given to me it was held by their Lo