- (1.) These appeals by special leave arise out of an order dated 20 th August, 2004, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby a batch of writ petitions challenging an order passed by the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow, dated 3 rd July, 1997, 1under Section 32 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), have been dismissed. The order passed by the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad pertained to 19 revision petitions of which 8 petitions were filed by Glaxo India Ltd. relevant to the period 1 st November, 1990 to 30 th September, 1994 while the remaining 11 petitions pertained to Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. relevant to the period between 1 st October, 1994 and 31 st May, 1996. During the pendency of the Special Leave Petitions, Writ Petition (C) No.144/2005 was filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, praying for a writ of certiorari, quashing order dated 25 th September, 2004 passed by the Deputy Director (Administration) Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow in another batch of revision petitions (pertaining to the period between 3 rd June, 1996 and 30 th April, 2004) and an assessment order dated 7 th July, 1998 passed by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Aligarh. A declaration to the effect that the goods removed from the petitioner's unit at Aligarh to places outside the State of Uttar Pradesh were by way of stock transfer and no Mandi Fee was payable on such transfers has also been prayed for. The facts giving rise to the appeals and the writ petition may be summarised as under:
(2.) Glaxo India Ltd., set up an industrial unit at Aligarh for the manufacture of what is sold in the market under the brand names Glacto, Complan, Farex, Glucon D and other products generically called milk foods/weaning foods and energy beverages. It is not in dispute that the manufacturing process undertaken in the said unit produced ghee as a by-product of the said items. It is also not in dispute that with effect from 1 st October, 1994, the Family Products Division of Glaxo India Ltd. was taken over by Heinz India Pvt. Ltd. who continued manufacturing the products mentioned above including ghee as a by-product of its manufacturing activity.
(3.) In terms of Section 17(iii) of the Act, sale of specified agricultural produce within the Mandi limits attracts levy of what is described as Mandi Fee from the person effecting the sale. The Mandi Samiti accordingly started demanding the said fee from Glaxo India Ltd., upto the year 1994 and from Heinz India Ltd., from 1994 onwards qua sales effected by the said two companies of its products including ghee. These demands were resisted by both the companies primarily on the ground that bulk of the ghee produced in their unit at Aligarh, if not the entire quantity, was sent out of the Mandi limits on stock transfer basis and that there was no sale involved in such transfers so as to attract the levy of the Mandi Fee on the same. Even so, the companies appear to have continued removing their goods from the Mandi limits in accordance with the procedure in vogue at the relevant time. In Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti & Ors. v. Shree Mahalaxmi Sugar Works & Ors., 1995 Supp3 SCC 433, decided on 2 nd February, 1995, this Court noticed the Explanation to Section 17(iii) of the Act and observed that there was a presumption against the dealers. This Court held that in view of the said presumption it is open to the Mandi Samiti to raise demands against the dealers before the issue of passes. If there is a valid rebuttal to the presumption and it is shown that no sale took place within the notified market area the dealers will be entitled to the passes, otherwise not. This Court further held that even if the dealers are compelled to pay the market fee as demanded it shall be open to them to challenge the same in the manner provided under the Act. This implied that if the claim of the dealers that the goods were not being removed pursuant to any sale transaction was rejected and a demand for payment of Mandi Fee raised, the aggrieved dealer could question that demand in appropriate proceedings.;