- (1.) By the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioners have prayed for a writ of Certiorari quashing the levy of market fee by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Ram Nagar, Nainital on the transaction of purchase of agricultural produce, i.e. wood (timber and fire wood) and rice etc. and for a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents not to realise the market fee and not to cancel their licence and to refund the entire amount realised from them since 1972 to November 1981.
(2.) The portrayal of the essential facts ate these. The Petitioners are forest contractors engaged in purchase and sale of woods and rice etc. keeping their business inside the market area of Ram Nagar. They are members of the Forest Contractors' Association, a registered body under the Societies Registration Act. The commodities in which the Petitioners are dealing, i.e. wood (timber and fire wood) and rice etc., have been notified as agricultural produce under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, (for short the Adhiniyam) The Petitioners are licencees and the market fee has been levied and assessed on them on transaction of sale and purchase of specified agricultural produce in the relevant year.
(3.) Sri S.P. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the Petitioners urged that under Section 17 of the Adhiniyam as amended by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1976, the market fee could not be levied by the Samiti (the Market Committee) as no bye-laws have been framed to that effect nor the rate specified by the State Government has been adopted by any resolution passed by the Mandi Samiti as provided under Rule 66 of the Rules or Niyamavali, 1965, framed under the Adhiniyam. Reliance was placed on the following observations in a Division Bench decision of this Court in Nand Rice & Oil Mills, Ram Nagar v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti,1987 AWC 1473 (hereinafter referred to as the II Division Bench), on page 1474: In view of the law laid dnwn in the above case each Mandi Samiti has to frame bye-laws imposing market fee on the transactions of sale and purchase of the agricultural produce taking place within its area. The Petitioners have specifically pleaded that Mandi Samiti has not framed any bye law under Section 17 of the Act for levying market fee. On the other hand, the Mandi Samiti claimed that necessary resolution in this regard was duly passed on 14-7-1973. Now it has to be determined whether the resolution dated 14-7-1973 can be considered a valid resolution for levying market fee. The resolution has been passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kashipur in the capacity of the Chairman of the Mandi Samiti.;