- (1.) M. L. Singhal, J. These two writ petitions have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the impugned Citation dated 10th September, 1997 (Annexure 1) and for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Muzaffarnagar (respon dent No. 1) to decide the representation moved by the petitioners. Since the facts and issues involved in the two writ peti tions are same, hence both of them are disposed of together.
(2.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the parties. The dispute between the two writ petitions relates to recovery of market fee in respect of Khandsari for the period llth October, 1973 to 12th August, 1975, by the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti (here in after referred to as the Mandi Samiti), respondent No. 1. The U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Act (Act No. 25 of 1964) was enforced in respect of sale and purchase of Khandsari through Notifica tion dated 13th September, 1973, issued by the State Government. This Court stayed the operation of the said Notification by its order dated llth October, 1973 and the applicability of the Act was suspended in relation to Khandsari. The result was that Mandi Samiti (respondent No. 1) did not enforce the provisions of the said U. P. Act No. 25 of 1964. Since the application of the provisions of the Act in respect of Khandsari was suspended, the petitioners did and continued to deal in Khandsari and did not obtain licence, required under the provisions of the Act. On 6th Septem ber, 1975 the said order was modified and the respondent Mandi Samiti asked the Khandsari dealers in the State of Uttar Pradesh to obtain licence and pay market fee and Mandi Samiti was directed to keep the amount realized by them in separate account. The petitioners' further allega tions are that ultimately all the writ peti tions were dismissed and the Mandi Samiti started demanding market fee on the transactions for the period 11-10-1973 to 12-8- 1975. The petitioners and the As sociation filed Writ Petitions in the High Court on the ground that no Notification has been issued under Section 10 of the Act in respect of Khandsari and as such market fee was not leviable. All the writ petitions were dismissed by this Court and S. L. P. filed before the Supreme Court was also dismissed, the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in S. L. P. is reported as Mis. Nandu mal Girdhari Lal v. State of U. P, 1992 ALJ 913. The petitioners have further contended that for the period 11-10-1973 to 12-8-1975 liability for payment of Mandi Samiti fee has been created, but the Mandi Samiti has never made an as sessment with respect to the aforesaid period. After the decision of the Supreme Court the Mandi Samiti made arbitrary demand. The petitioner deposited Rs. 81,123. 20 on 29-12-1992 in pursuance of the demand involved in Writ Petition No. 31586 of 1997 and Rs. 30,231. 16 in respect of the demand involved in Writ Petition No. 31588 of 1997. The petitioners paid the amounts on the basis of actual sale transaction, though in fact no assessment whatsoever has yet been made by the Mandi Samiti in respect of the aforesaid period. Further, the amounts were paid by the petitioners in full satisfaction of the respondents' claim. Some of the petitioners filed Civil Suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Muzaffarnagar, in which the injunction was granted in favour of the dealers, in the appeal filed by the Mandi Samiti before this Court, the Court directed the parties to file representation before the Mandi Samiti and the Mandi Samiti was directed to decide the repre sentation. The Director of the Mandi Samiti made the assessment for the aforesaid period.
(3.) TO the utter surprise of the petitioners, on 10th September, 1987 the Mandi Samiti has issued Recovery Cita tion calling the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 31586 of 1997 to pay Rs. 1,16,478. 80 and the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 31588 of 1997 to pay Rs. 1,74,296. 84. The aforesaid recoveries are illegal, without jurisdiction as no assessment has yet been made by the Mandi Samiti, with these al legations the petitioners invoked this Court's jurisdiction, filed petitions and prayed for reliefs, alluded above. Both the writ petitions have been contested by the Mandi Samiti, respon dent No. 1. Counter- affidavit has been filed in Writ Petition No. 31586 of 1997 and the same has been adopted by the respondents in Writ Petition No. 31588 of 1997. The defence disclosed in the counter-affidavits filed in both the peti tions is the same. It has been contended on behalf of the Mandi Samiti that the Recovery Certificates issued in both the cases are legal and perfectly valid. After the decision of the Supreme Court in the S. L. P. , M/s. Nandu mal Girdhari Lal v. State of U. P. (supra), the matter has at tained finality. It is wrong to say that no assessment has been made and the amounts deposited by the petitioners were in full and final settlement of the claim for the period in dispute. The petitioners were repeatedly given opportunities to produce their accounts before the respondents and the petitioners have not complied with the orders. The respondents have assessed the Mandi Samiti fee on the basis of the record in accordance with law.;