- (1.) BY means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to impose or realize any Mandifee, Development Cess, or Compounding Fee on the agricultural produce purchased by the petitioner on behalf of the retailers within the limits of Mandi- area Nazibabad (U. P. ). Fur ther Mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to refund the amount, which has been charged illegally by the respondents.
(2.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused evidence, counter affidavits and re joinder affidavit. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the writ petition are that the petitioners are whole sale traders of fruits and vegetables in Nazibabad, District Bijnor in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Petitioners are registered licensee of Mandi Samiti Nazibabad, who were allotted shops and plots inside Mandi compound of Nazibabad (State of Uttar Pradesh ). They pay. Mandi Fee and Development Cess on behalf of the retailers after purchasing fruits and veg-etables from them to Mandi Samiti Nazibabad. The petitioners supply fruits and vegetables from State of Uttar Pradesh to State of Uttarakahnd by transporting the same through trucks, but the goods loaded in the trucks for different destinations in State of Uttarakhand are stopped by the respondent Mandi Samitis illegally and petitioners are being made to pay Mandi Shulka at various places of Trade-tax Check Post by intercept ing the trucks. It is alleged that goods trans ported are accompanied with valid papers with them. It is pleaded in the writ petition that the petitioners represented their griev ances to the respondents but to no avail. Hence, the realization of Mandi-Fee by the respondents has been challenged on various grounds alleging that the same is violative of provisions of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. The writ petition is contested by the re spondents. On behalf of respondent Nos. 2,4 and 5, a counter affidavit is filed, in which it has been stated that Uttar Pradesh Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 is a welfare legislation with primary object to help the farmers. It is fur ther stated that Section 17 of the said Act empowers the Mandi Samitis (Market Com mittees) to levy and collect Mandi Fee. It is further stated that under Section 36 of the aforesaid Act, the officers of the Mandi Samitis are authorised to inspect and seize the goods. It is also stated in the counter affida vit that Section 37-A of the Act empowers Chairman, Mandi Samiti to compound the offence committed by any person under the Act. It is admitted that petitioners are carry ing business of fruits and vegetables and their trucks are destined to various places in Garhwal region of State of Uttarakhand. Ac cording to the answering respondents, Mandi Fee was rightly imposed and realized by the respondent, in para 16 of the counter affida vit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2,4 and 5, it is stated that on checking, the petitioner's truck U. A. 11-0993 was found transporting the goods without valid papers, the goods were seized and on receiving application for compounding of offence, the same was com pounded by the authorised officers in exer cise of powers under Section 37-A of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964.
(3.) A separate counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, in which it has been stated that Mandi Fee is being realized under Section 17 (iii) of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 as per U. P. Govt. Notification No. 8948/12-5-125/1973 dated 25-9-1993 (applicable to the State of Uttarakhand ). It is further stated in the counter affidavit of respondent No. 3 that under order of District Magistrate vide letter No. 3319/24-F. C. (2007-08) dated 30th August, 2008 (copy Annexure CA-3 to the counter affidavit) two check-post at Srinagar (Pauri) and Marchula were established to check the illegal trading and transaction of Mandi goods. It is further stated that no Mandi Fee is being realized from those transporters, who are having valid Form No. 9 and gate-pass with them. It is stated in paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 that petitioners do not possess license while the answering re spondent provides the facilities of road, light, water etc. Before further discussion, this Court thinks it just and proper to mention that the preamble of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (for short hereinaf ter referred to as 'the Act') shows that this legislation has been made for regulation of sale and purchase of agricultural products and for the establishment, superintendence and control of markets therefor in State. The statement of objects and reasons of the Act fur ther discloses that following objectives were to be achieved through the legislation: " (i) to reduce the multiple trade charges, levies and exactions charged at present from the producer- sellers ; (ii) to provide for the verification of accu rate weights and scales and see that the pro ducer-seller is not denied his legitimate due; (iii) to establish market committees in which the agricultural producer will have his due rep resentation ; (iv) to ensure that the agricultural producer has his say in the utilization of market funds for the improvement of the market as a whole; (v) to provide for fair settlement of dis putes relating to the sale of agricultural pro duce ; (vi) to provide amenities to the producer-seller in the market; (vii) to arrange for better storage facilities; (viii) to stop inequitable and unauthorized charges and levies from the producer-seller; and (ix) to make adequate arrangements for market intelligence with a view to posting the agricultural producer with the latest position in respect of the markets dealing with his pro duce. ";