R. K. Gulati, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition is directed against the order dated 10th December, 1980 contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. By the impugned order the petitioner was called upon to pay a sum of Rs. 22,733.68 N. P. as Mandi fee within one week, failing which the same would be realised from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue under Section 20(1) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (for short, the Act). The petitioner disputes its liability to pay the aforesaid demand on various grounds set out in the writ petition. The dispute relates to the year 1977-78. At the relevant time the petitioner owned a Cold Storage in the Town Area Dewa, District Barabanki and held a licence for a warehouse under Rule 67 of the Rules framed under the Act. By a letter dated 20th May 80 the petitioner was required to pay the disputed amount as market fee, on the allegation, inter alia, that the petitioner had advanced a sum of Rs. 8,30,000/- to the agriculturists against their storage of potatoes to the extent of 21039 quintal and under Section 2(r) of the Act the amount advanced by the Cold Storage to the agriculturists against their storage of potato is regarded as a transaction of sale. The petitioner objected to the letter dated 20th May, 1980 and the demand made therein and filed objections denying its liability to pay any market fee as well the suggestion that the petitioner had admitted having advanced the amount or was in any way connected with the loan that had been advanced by the Bank to its constituents against the goods or their products stored with the petitioner and given as security to the Bank of its advance/loan to them. The petitioner asserted in its objection that it had not entered into any such transaction attributed to it in the letter deed 20th May, 1980, and if the hirers had taken any loan from the Bank, no liability for payment of market fee could arise and become payable by the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that without making any enquiry and without following the principles of natural justice, the respondent by the impugned order dated 10th December, 1980 has concluded that the petitioner had admitted that there had been a transaction of Rs. 8,30,000/- of loan relating to 21039 quintals of potatos in the petitioners cold storage, whereas the true position was that there was no such admission ever made by the petitioner, nor the petitioner was associated with the loans given to its constituents by the Bank.
(2.) The petitioner preferred an appeal against the impugned order, but it was rejected by an order dated 19th January, 1961 on the ground that the impugned order was not appealable as orders under sub-sections (i) and (ii) of Section 17 of the Act alone were appealable, and the impugned order had not been passed under those provisions. On these facts the petitioner has approached this Court through this writ petition and has prayed for a writ of certiorari seeking quasing of the order dated 10th December, 1980 contained in Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The petitioner has also asked for a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition commanding the respondent to refrain from realising the disputed amount of market fee from the petitioner on the basis of the impugned Order. Further respondent be directed to act according to law and to refrain from levying market fee on the petitioner and at any rate to make such enquiries as this Court may direct in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law for the purposes of assessment and levy of the fee.
(3.) We may at this stage observe that Section 17(iii)(b) entitles the Market Committee to levy and collect fee in market area. Those provisions envisage that a Committee shall, for the purposes of the Act, have the power to levy and collect market fee which shall be payable on transaction of sale of specified agricultural produce in the market area at such rates, being not less than one per centum and not more than one and a half per centum of the price of the agricultural produce so sold, as the State Government may specify by notification, and such fee shall be realised in the manner as provided by sub-clauses (1)(4) of the said provision. The expression sale has been defined under Section 2(r), which reads as under:- "sale includes barter or deposit of goods by way of pledge or as security for the amount received as advance.";