BADRILAL MANGILAL Vs. STATE OF MP
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (AT: JABALPUR)
STATE OF MP
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner before this Court has filed the present petition against the order dated 13/10/2015 issued by the respondent No. 2-Managing Director, M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board.
(2.) The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner is the licensee of respondent No. 4-Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and he has purchased agricultural produce from respondent No. 6-M/S. Sheikh Brothers, Bhander, District-Datia. The bills issued by M/S. Sheikh Brothers were verified by the Authority and the Authority came to a conclusion that the bills submitted by the petitioner are forged and fabricated bills and therefore, a demand has been raised from the petitioner.
(3.) This Court has dealt with large number of identical cases arising out of the forged bills submitted by M/S. Sheikh Brothers, Bhander, District-Datia and in one such case, WP No. 2888/2016 decided on 02/01/2017, the following order has been passed.
" The facts of the case reveal that the present petitioner has purchased soyabean from the respondent No. 7, M/s. Sheikh Brothers, Bhander, District Dhatia and he has submitted a certificate in respect of market fee which was paid to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti by M/s. Sheikh Brothers, Bhander, District Dhatia respondent No. 7.
The facts of the case further reveal that the certificate which was submitted by the petitioner was sent to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bander for verification and the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bander has certified that the certificate submitted by the petitioner in respect of market fee are forged and fabricated certificate. Demand was raised by the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Dewas directing the petitioner to deposit the market fee, as provided under section 19 of Krishi Upaj Mandi Act, 1972. The total amount was deposited by the petitioner. Therefore, an order was passed on 20-08-2015 cancelling the license of the petitioner and a demand was raised again in respect of payment of Mandi fee. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Board and Board has dismissed the appeal by an order dated 31-03-2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued before this court that the respondent No. 7 has given him a certificate in respect of mandi fee paid to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Bhander and, therefore, as respondent No. 7 has cheated him, he is liable to pay market fee to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Dewas.
On the other hand learned counsel for the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti has argued before this court that on the basis of forged and fabricated certificate in respect of Mandi fee, the petitioner wants exemption/warrier in the matter.
This court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the order dated 31-03-2016 is of the opinion that the petitioner cannot claim set off in respect of Mandi fee on the basis of forged and fabricated certificate. In case of respondent No. 7 has fabricated some certificate, the petitioner shall be free to take action against the respondent No. 7, in accordance with law. However, so far as payment of Mandi fee is concerned, as same was not paid, the respondent No. 5 and respondent No. 2 were justified in directing the petitioner to pay the Mandi dues, keeping in view the provision of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Act, 1972. This court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 31-03-2016. The admission is declined. Certified copy as per rules.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.