NANDU MAL GIRDHARI LAL AMAR NATH ASHOK KUMAR ATMA RAM KISHAN LAL HARI RAM PRAHALAD RAI Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common-points of law are involved, all these appeals are dealt with under one judgment.

(2.) The appellants, commission agents were carrying on trade in the notified market area. The attack is as to the levy of market fee on them in relation to the business of khandsari sugar. To highlight the issue involved we will set out the legal background first.

(3.) The U. P. Legislature passed an Act called U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam in the year 1964 as Act 25 of 1964. The object of the Act was to regulate the sale and purchase of agricultural produce and for the establishment, superintendence and control of markets in U. P. Section 5 of the Act confers powers on the State Government in relation to regulation of sale and purchase of any agricultural produce in any area wherein such transactions are usually carried on and for that purpose to declare the area as a market area. This declaration is to be by way of a notification. Section 7 empowers even a portion of that market area be specified as a principal market yard, while such other portions could be specified as sub-market yard. The effect of such declaration of market area is spoken to under Section 9. In that, no person shall deal with specified agricultural, produce except in accordance with the conditions of licence granted by the Committee. Sub-section (9)(ii) is specific, while it says the commission agent, trader, or broker will have to carry on the busines in accordance with the conditions of licence. Section 10 prohibits realisation of trade purchases from the producers from the sale and purchase of specific. agricultural produce except those which are permitted by the rules or bye-laws.