RAJES KUMAR,J - (1.) THESE are the bunch of cases involving common questions arising from the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and, therefore, all the writ petitions are being disposed of together by a common order.
(2.) ALL the petitioners were carrying on the business of Chillies. Chillies was one of the notified agriculture produce. All the petitioners were the licensees under the Act. Admittedly the petitioners sold chillies during the period January, 2008 to March, 2008 in a up-mandi area, Phoolpur which comes under the principal mandi of Shahganj, Jaunpur. On the sales of chillies, the petitioners had paid mandi fees on the value shown in 6R. There is no dispute in this regard. The Secretary, U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Shahganj, Jaunpur issued an order dated 30.4.2008 asking the petitioners to pay additional mandi fees on the sales of chillies during the period January, 2008 to March, 2008 on the ground that in 6R the value of chillies was shown much less than the prevailing value with the view to evade the mandi fees. In the order, mandi fees had been demanded on the value of Rs.600/- for the month of January and February and at the rate of Rs.800/- for the month of March, 2008. The petitioners claimed to have filed an objection on 21.5.2008, which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, disputing the demand on the ground that mandi fees were paid through the Mandi Samiti Inspector at the time of sales itself who was present, on the prevalent market rate on which no objection has been raised by the Inspector and, therefore, the demand is wholly unjustified. It appears that no cognizance has been taken by the Secretary, U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Shahganj, Jaunpur to the letter of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners filed the revision against the order dated 30.4.2008 before the Deputy Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P., Varanasi. The revisions of the petitioners have been rejected by the impugned orders dated 20.9.2008.
(3.) HEARD Sri Girish Chandra Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri B.D. Mandhyan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Satish Mandhyan, learned counsel for the respondents.;