O.P.Garg, J. - (1.) The core question involved for consideration on and determination in the present writ petition is whether the absorbent cotton, popularly known as surgical cotton comes within the orbit of the expression 'agricultural produce' as defined in Section 2 (a) of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhinlyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and market fee is leviable thereon under Section 17 (iii) (b) of the Act treating it to be cotton (ginned and unginned) as mentioned at SI. No. 3 of item (iv) Fibres. Detailed in the Schedule appended to the Act.
(2.) The above controversy has come up before this Court in the backdrop of the following facts : The petitioner No. 1-M/s. Indian Surgical Works. Garh Road, Tilakwa. district Ghaziabad, through its partner-petitioner No. 2. is engaged in the wholesale and retail sale of absorbent cotton wool (I.P.) (for short 'absorbent cotton'). The respondent Nos, 2 and 3 (compendiously referred to as 'Mandi Samiti') required the petitioners to obtain a licence so that Mandi Samiti of the area may regulate the sale and purchase of the absorbent cotton. It also served a notice dated 31.8.1998 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) on the petitioners of its intention to levy the market fee. A reply to the said notice was furnished by the petitioner to the Chairman, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti-respondent No. 3. a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It appears that the petitioners have been unsuccessful in convincing the Mandi Samiti that absorbent cotton being an item notified as a drug is not subject to levy of market fee Consequently, the petitioners filed an Original Suit No. 254 of 1998 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hapur, to challenge the threatened/ proposed action of the Mandi Samiti to levy the market fee on the absorbent cotton. The Mandi Samiti filed a written statement and also filed an objection to the application for temporary Injunction. The injunction application was allowed by the trial court by order dated 5.2.1999 and it was directed that the Mand Samiti shall not interfere with the petitioners' business of sale and purchase of absorbent cotton. Against the order passed by the trial court, the Mandi Samiti filed a Misc. Appeal No. 17 of 1999 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Hapur. This appeal was allowed on 12.4.1999 primarily on the ground that the petitioners, instead of filing the civil suit, should have filed an appeal before the Board as contemplated under Section 25 of the Act.
(3.) In the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.4.1999 passed by the respondent No. 1-Additional District Judge, Hapur. rejecting the injunction application and the order dated 31.8.1998 issued by respondent No. 3 manifesting its intention to levy the market fee primarily on the ground that the absorbent cotton is not equivalent to the cotton-ginned and unginned as mentioned in the Schedule to the Act, and since the absorbent cotton is beyond the purview of the Act. market fee cannot be levied. It is prayed that the orders, aforesaid be quashed and the Mandi Samiti be directed not to charge any market fee on the absorbent cotton from the petitioner. A direction has further been sought commanding the Mandi Samiti to restrain themselves from interfering with the business of the petitioners.;