Amar Nath Varma, J. - (1.) THE petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 are both engaged in the business of purchasing paddy and manufacturing and selling rice within the limits of Jasrana in the town area of Mainpuri. The town area of Mainpuri has been declared by the State Government under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Adhiniyam') as the principal market yard of the market area of Mainpuri while Jasrana has been notified by the State Government under the Adhiniyam as a sub -market yard of Mainpuri. By means of this petition, the petitioners have challenged the imposition and levy of market fee on them by the respondent Mandi Samiti on the ground that the market fee being realized by the Mandi Samiti from the traders does not bear any relation to the services being rendered by the Mandi Samiti. It is contended by them that the respondent Mandi Samiti is, in fact, not rendering any service to the petitioners or others within the sub -market yard of Jasrana and consequently it is not entitled to recover market fee from them. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in the above contention. In the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the respondent Mandi Samiti it has been asserted that while it has collected so far a sum of Rs. 1,88,227.00 as market -fee on the transactions of sale and purchase made within the sub -market yard of Jasrana, it has spent a sum of Rs. 80417 -00 on the various services being rendered to the traders within the market -yard in question. It is stated in the counter affidavit that the Mandi Samiti has made provision for supply of drinking water to the purchasers, sellers, traders and others engaged in the business of transactions of sale and purchase of specified agricultural produce brought within the sub marketyard. It is also providing lighting facilities by arranging for petromax at the purchasing centre, besides providing sieves for washing the agricultural produce brought within the marketyard for sale. In addition, tents and shelters have been provided by the Mandi Samiti. On the purchase of these various items, the Mandi Samiti claims to have spent a sum of Rs. 50,000.00. Further, the Mandi Samiti has constructed link roads and culverts and placed kharanja on these link roads which connect the sub marketyard with the main road through which the agricultural produce and other articles are brought within the sub marketyard for the transaction of sale and purchase. It is claimed that prior to the construction of the link road by the Mandi Samiti, the arrivals of agricultural produce in the sub -marketyards used to be only around 5,000 quintals per year. As a result of the construction of the roads, however, the arrivals have gone up to 49,000 quintals. Mandi Samiti has further resolved to purchase land for construction of sub marketyard at Jasrana for which land has already been selected and proposals submitted to the Government on September 24, 1978 for the acquisition of 4.41 acres of land. A provision of a sum of Rs. 1,35,000.00 has been made in its budget for the purpose of acquisition of that land. It is stated that the matter has been finalized and the land is going to be acquired very soon for the construction of a new market complex in the sub marketyard.
(2.) THE break -up of various items of expenditure mentioned above has been disclosed in annexure 1 and 2 to the counter affidavit. For the petitioners it was vehemently contended that the amount spent by the respondent Mandi Samiti over the construction of approach roads and culverts could not be taken into consideration in adjudging the validity of the market fee inasmuch as the constructions fell outside the sub marketyard. Relying on a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Messrs. Janta Rice and General Mills and others v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Haldawani and others rendered on January 28, 1983, learned counsel submitted that it is only the amount spent over raising of constructions in the particular market yard or sub marketyard in which market fee is being imposed which can be legitimately taken into account. Any amount which may have been spent over construction falling outside the marketyard or sub marketyard has to be ignored and cannot be pleaded in justification of a market fee being levied within the marketyard of sub marketyard.
(3.) WE are unable to accept the above contention. In the case of Janta Rice and General Mills (supra) the Division Bench was considering the validity of a market fee which was challenged on the ground that there was no element of quid pro quo between the market -fee being realized by the Mandi Samiti and the services being rendered by it within that marketyard. The respondent Mandi Samiti sought to justify the imposition by referring to an item of expenditure said to have been incurred by it over the construction of another marketing centre at Mainpuri which, though fell within the market area in question, was beyond the limits of the marketyard or sub marketyard of Bhogaon within which the market -fee in question was being realised. The Division Bench held that such an expenditure could not be validly pleaded in justification of the fee as it was not relatable to any amenities being provided within the marketyard or sub marketyard. The marketyard at Mainpuri was far removed from Bhogaon. It was further observed that from the provisions of the Act and the principles, laid down in case of Kewal Krishan Puri and another v. State of Punjab and others : A.I.R. 1980 S.C. 1008 it was clear that an amount spent over raising of constructions beyond the marketyard or sub marketyard within which the market fee was being levied could not in Jaw be taken into account. The Division Bench itself, however, hastened to make an exception in the case of construction of approach roads etc. as was pointed out in Kewal Krishan Puri's case (supra).;