M.Katju, S.L.Saraf, JJ. - (1.) Heard Sri Sunil Ambwani learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. D. Mandhyan learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 7.9.1998 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition). The controversy in the present case is very narrow. The petitioner has alleged in paragraph Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the writ petition that the members of the petitioners Association purchase cotton textile [Viscose, Polyester, Synthetics, etc.) and thread cuttings and wastes, which is dyed and coloured, from textile and thread mills and garment manufacturers and exporters of Bombay. Madras, Bangalore, Calcutta, Delhi. Panipat, Saharanpur. Sitapur. Bhadohi, Jaipur and Ludhiana. etc. The cotton and textile waste and thread cuttings are brought to Amroha. They are first cleaned and thereafter, cut into small pieces with the help of iron cutters (Gandasa). The cleaning and sorting is done by the women workers and the cutting work is done by male workers. This industry employs about 6,000 male and female workers. After the textile and cotton waste is cleaned and cut into small pieces, it is put into mechanically operated carding machines and after six or eight rounds of operation, it is converted into textile waste. This textile waste is used for manufacture of Dart Khas and is also used for filling in pillows, sofas, Gaddas, etc. The entire process as aforesaid is done in handloom sector. Photographs showing sorting and carding of textile and cotton wastes are annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition.
(2.) It has been stated in paragraph 10 of the writ petition that the aforesaid process is in fact recycling of textile cuttings into textile wastes in handloom sector. It is alleged by the petitioner that in fact the petitioner does not deal in any agricultural produce, hence no mandi fees can be charged from it under U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1965.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In paragraph 17 of the same, it has been alleged that the members of the petitioner's association collects the residue of cotton used in textile, and not a cotton textile (Viscose, polyester and synthetics). The short controversy in this petition is whether the petitioner is dealing with cotton waste or textile waste. If the petitioner is dealing with textile waste, no mandi fees can be charged as it is not agricultural produce. If the petitioner is using cotton waste of the mills then of course, fee can be charged from it under the said Adhiniyam. Since this aspect has not been countered in the impugned order, we set aside the impugned order dated 7.9.1998 and remand the matter to respondent No. 3 to pass a fresh order on the basis of the observations made above after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.;