- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the proceedings under Section 37 of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad as also the summoning order.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner is a company registered under the Indian Companies Act. It has an industrial unit for manufacture of Ayurvedic medicines at Naini, Allahabad. For this purpose the petitioner obtained a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. For the purpose of manufacture of these Ayurvedic drugs the petitioner purchases commodities including certain products which are agricultural produce e. g. Gur, Ghee, Amala etc. It is alleged that the petitioner consumed these agricultural products in its factory for manufacturing ayurvedic drugs. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner is not a producer under Section 2 (p) of the Act nor is it a broker under Section 2 (b), or a trader under Section 2 (y) of the Act. It is alleged that the petitioner is not a buyer or seller of agricultural produce nor is it engaged in processing of agricultural produce. Hence it is alleged that the Act is not applicable to the petitioner company. The petitioner purchases agricultural produce only as raw material for its production in its factory. Hence it is alleged that the petitioner is under no obligation to take a licence under Section 9 (2) and the provisions of Rule 70 of the Rules made under the Act have no application.
(3.) IT is alleged in paragraph 13 of the writ petition that to the utter surprise of the petitioner it was served with the notice dated 17-3-1999 Annexure-1 to the writ petition from the office of the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Mundera, Allahabad stating that the petitioner should obtain a licence under the Act failing which proceedings will be taken against him. On receiving this notice the petitioner sent a reply dated 31-3-1999 stating that the petitioner is not a trader and hence is not liable to taken any licence under the Act. True copy of the petitioner's reply is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. However, vide letter dated 2-12-2000 the respondent Secretary, Mandi Samiti issued an order stating that the petitioner's explanation has been considered but it is not acceptable and hence the petitioner should taken a licence under Section 9 (2) read with Rule 70 of the Rules otherwise legal action will be taken against him. True copy of the said letter dated 2-12-2000 is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. The petitioner sent reply dated 3-12-2000 vide Annexure 4 to the writ petition. However, thereafter vide letter dated 16-12-2000 and 15-2-2001 the petitioner was directed again to take licence vide Annexure 5 and 6 to the writ petition. The respondents have initiated proceedings for penalty under Section 37 of the Act against the petitioner for which summons have been issued. Hence this petition. A counter-affidavit has been filed and we have perused the same. In paragraph 8 it is stated that Gur, Ghee, Amla are specified agricultural produce as notified in the Schedule to the Act. Hence the transactions in those commodities entails market fee, and after declaration of the market area all the traders or consumers who effect sales and purchase or even store agricultural produce are liable to take a licence under Section 9 of the Act.;