- (1.) LEAVE granted.
(2.) APPELLANT is a Market Committee constituted under the Maharashtra agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (for short, 'the act' ). First respondent herein deals in Edible Oils and Vanaspati. By reason of a Notification dated 25. 9. 1987, the State of Maharashtra in exercise of its power under Section 62 of the said Act added some items in the Schedule appended thereto such as sugar, dry fruits, edible oils and vanaspati to the Schedule of the Act. Appellant No. 1, Market Committee, started collecting market fee as also supervision charges on all notified agricultural produces marketed on wholesale basis. The wholesale market in respect of condiments, spices, dry fruits etc. was shifted from Greater bombay to New Bombay on and from 1. 1. 1991 where a huge market had been constructed by the appellants. Respondents allegedly, despite the applicability of the provisions of the said Act as also the Notification dated 25. 9. 1987, did not get itself registered thereunder contending that 'vanaspati' had not been included in the Schedule appended thereto. Some of the traders dealing in edible oil had also obtained exemption from payment of market fee and supervision charges for a short time. Such exemption granted was, however, withdrawn. Various litigations were initiated before the Bombay High Court questioning the validity of the said notification as also levy of market fee and supervision charges by the Committee. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also filed writ petitions in the year 1988 contending that they were not liable to pay any market fee or supervision charges.
(3.) THE High Court by reason of a judgment and order dated 16. 6. 2006 although rejected the contention that the respondents were not liable to pay any market fee, opined that the appellant was not entitled to collect supervision charges. Supervision charges as also interest accrued thereon were payable to the State Government. The High Court in its judgment held: "the impugned orders which have been passed either during the pendency of the petition or before the petition was filed are silent on the quantum of supervision charges paid by the respondent No. 1-Committee to the State Government in respect of the sale/distribution of vanaspati produced by the petitioners and marketed in the market area of respondent No. 1, though not from the market yard. In the absence of the petitioners having an outlet or a depot or a trading centre in the market yard of respondent no. 1, the other place is only the premises of the petitioners as admittedly the respondent no. 1 has not established any other collection centres or subsidiary markets by exercising powers under Section 5 and Section 30a of the Act. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the respondent No. 1-Committee has no powers to cause recovery of supervision charges from the petitioners as at present and the impugned orders to that extent are unsustainable. " In regard to the payment of interest, it was held : "we are afraid Clause (y) below Rule 120 does not come to the rescue of the Market Committee in support of its case that it has the power to charge interest varying from 12% to 21% on the delayed dues of market fees and supervision charges under bye-law No. 14 (A ). Section 31 as well as sections 34a to 34c clearly provide for only penal charges and bye-law no. 14 cannot be termed so as to cover condition of trading and marketing in the market area. We have also noticed that on issuance of the notice by the Market Committee, the petitioners have taken due steps and during the pendency of the petitions or before the impugned orders for recovery were passed, they have deposited certain sums. In both the petitions, it is not a case of inordinate delay in responding to the demands and, in fact, the demands have been substantially met within few months. No reasons have been given in the impugned orders as to why the Market committee felt it appropriate to recover interest and not the penal charges from the petitioners. We, therefore, hold that the respondent No. 1 has no powers to charge interest at the rate of 12% or any higher rate upto 21% on the delayed payment of market fees and supervision charges and it was not even otherwise justified to levy such charges in the instant cases. " Mr. Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that the question as to whether any supervision charges were payable or not had not been raised by the respondents and in that view of the matter, the High Court committed a serious error in arriving at the aforementioned conclusion.;