- (1.) The only point that arises for consideration is the tenability of the order passed by the Chief Administrator. This order was a confirmation of an earlier order passed by the Executive Officer of Market Committee on 12.9.1991 (Annexure P-6) under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 requiring the petitioner to pay the market fee and penalty for having submitted form LL beyond a period of 20 days from the date when it was brought to the notified area. The petitioner claimed that the grains purchased from Food Corporation of India had already borne the market fee and the same was paid by Food Corporation of India from which the petitioner had purchased.
(2.) The impugned order claimed market fee and penalty on the ground that in terms of the relevant rules, the Form LL was to be submitted within 20 days of the bringing of the produce within the notified market area. While dealing with this rule 30 sub rule (5) proviso, this Court has held in Varsha Spinning Mills Limted v. State of Haryana, 1995 2 RRR 229 that the stipulation of 20 days period is merely directory and cannot found a justification for levying the penalty and also claiming the market fee. Again similar view has been taken in Anand Convass Mills Pvt Ltd. v. State of Haryana and others, 1993 PunLJ 434. This judgment provides for imposition of penalty but lays down specifically that market fee cannot be collected again.
(3.) The counsel appearing for the respondent refers to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others v. Ganesh Rice and General Mills and another, 1999 1 RCR(Civ) 463 in support of his plea to the contrary. The Supreme Court, although, was examining the effect of submission of Form LL beyond the prescribed period of 20 years, was dealing with a factually different situation. In that case, apart from a mere assertion that market fee had already been paid, no proof was adduced. In the instant case, the certificate of payment of market fee by FCI was actually submitted along with Form LL. Further, it was not as if the Supreme Court was foreclosing the option to the purchaser to adduce proof of payment of market fee. The Supreme Court was actually remanding the case, giving the liberty to file the declaration and certificate of payment to the market committee.;