Tarun Agarwala - (1.) THE short question, which arises for consideration in this group of writ petition is, whether sub-clause (3) of Clause (b) of sub-section (iii) of Section 17 of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam) is attracted in the instant case or not ? THE facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions is, that the petitioner is a Public Limited Company and has a factory at Saharanpur in the State of Uttar Pradesh and is engaged in the manufacture of paper. THE raw material required for the manufacture of paper is wood which is purchased by the petitioner from various deposits of the U. P. Forest Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the U.P.F.C.) through various allotment orders. THEse depots, according to the petitioner, are located in the 'reserved area' as notified under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It is contended that in the reserved area, only such activities can be carried out which are permitted under the said Act.
(2.) THE present group of writ petitions is an inter se dispute between the petitioner and the Mandi Samitis relating to the period 1986 to 1998. For facility, the facts of Writ Petition No. 24998 of 2008 is taken into consideration and is being made the leading case. It transpires that in the year 1986, a notice was issued by the Mandi Samiti directing the petitioner to pay the market fee on the purchase of wood made by them from the U.P.F.C. The petitioner subsequently filed a Writ Petition No. 6710 of 1986, challenging the imposition of the demand of Mandi fee made by the Mandi Samiti. An interim order dated 17th of October, 1986 was granted directing the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 15,000, upon which, the respondents were restrained from realising the market fee on the transactions made between the U.P.F.C. and the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ petition, further demands were made, which resulted in the filing of Writ Petition No. 3290 (MB) of 1991. The aforesaid writ petitions were dismissed eventually by a judgment dated 11th December, 1998, holding that the purchase of wood by the petitioner was for the manufacture of paper and was not for personal consumption, as envisaged under Rule 70 of the Rules and that the petitioner was a trader and was engaged in the processing of agricultural produce and that the wood was an agricultural produce. The Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an efficacious, alternative remedy by filing an objection before the Mandi Samiti after paying the Mandi fee as per the provisional assessment order, upon which the Mandi Samiti would pass a final order. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a special leave petition, which was admitted, and eventually, the civil appeal was disposed of by a judgment dated 19th September, 2006 affirming the decision of the High Court and directing the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy by filing an objection before the authority. The Supreme Court, however, while disposing of the civil appeal, directed that the Mandi authorities would not recover any amount till the final adjudication of the matter.
(3.) BASED on the aforesaid direction, the petitioner filed detailed objections, and the Secretary, Mandi Samiti, after considering the objections, passed an order dated 14.11.2006 assessing a sum of Rs. 61,55,900.40 as Mandi fee, and further imposed a sum of Rs. 1,48,238.95 as development cess. The Secretary, Mandi Samiti also imposed interest @ 2% per month or 24% per annum on the aforesaid Mandi fee and cess, payable w.e.f. 1st April, 1990 onwards. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order, filed a revision under Section 32 of the Adhiniyam before the Director, Mandi Samiti, which was eventually transferred to the Deputy Director, who by the impugned order dated 15th September, 2008 dismissed the revision and affirmed the order of the Mandi Samiti. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, has filed the present writ petitions praying for the quashing of the order of the Mandi Samiti and of the order of the revisional authority, and has further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the Mandi Samiti not to levy, impose or demand or collect the Mandi fee, development cess or interest from the petitioner in respect of the wood purchased from the depots of the Forest Corporation. Similar assessment orders were passed in the connected writ petitions, and since similar issues has been raised, all the writ petitions are being decided together by a common judgment.;