- (1.) Leave granted. The first respondent, a dealer under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') purchased paddy from areas outside the jurisdiction of the Market Committee, Karnal between 8-12-96 and 1-1-97 amounting to Rs. 5,94,630.35 for processing. It submitted a return in Form M under Rule 31 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') on 17-3-97 setting out the details of the purchases. Column 7 in the form provides for stating whether fee was leviable and if not, why. It the return filed by the first respondent as aforesaid in Form M the said column was left blank. The Market Committee, Karnal issued Memo No. 241 dated 18-3-97 to the first respondent, pointing out the delay in filing the report and informing it that a fee of Rs. 11,892.60 was payable on the purchase and the same may be deposited within a week and in case of default action will be taken. On 27-3-97, another memo was issued along with a certified copy of rule 30(5) of the Rules, pointing out that the first respondent had not given necessary information and declaration in time and as such liable to pay the fee claimed already.
(2.) The first respondent sent a reply on 4-4-97 claiming exemption from payment on the ground that the fee had been paid at the place of purchase and it was not payable second time. The Market Committee sent notices on 8-4-97 and 28-4-97 rejecting the stand of the first respondent and reiterating that the relevant Rules were not complied with and the requisite forms were not filed. The Market Committee forwarded the papers to the Assistant Collector, Grade II, Karnal (the 4th petitioner herein) for recovery of the fee as arrears of land revenue and the latter issued notice dated 10-6-97 to the first respondent treating it as a 'defaulter'.
(3.) The first respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing proceedings including the levy of market fee. The High Court proceeded on the footing that the first respondent had paid the fee at the place where the purchase was made and there was only a delay in complying with the Rules. The High Court held that mere delay will not enable the Market Committee to levy fee for second time even though it may be entitled to levy a penalty. Consequently, the High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the levy of market fee was without jurisdiction. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellants have preferred this appeal by Special Leave.;