- (1.) Through the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 22.10.1998, Annexure P.1 passed respondent No. 1-Secretary Market Committee, Lalru, whereby it has been directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 49520/- as market fee and the equal amount as Rural Development Fund (RDF) for not submitting K1 form thereby violating Rule 29(3) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (in short, "the Rules"). Further prayer has been made for quashing the resolution dated 5.2.1999, Annexure P.2 for referring the matter to the Collector for recovery of the amount from the petitioner and the order dated 21.12.2000, Annexure P.3 passed by the Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5.2.1999 passed by the Market Committee, Lalru has been dismissed. A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a private limited company. It is engaged in rice shelling and for this purpose it purchases paddy from various places in Punjab from within notified market areas. While making purchase of paddy, the market fee and RDF was paid to the market committee within whose jurisdiction purchase of paddy was made. During assessment year 1997-98, the petitioner-company purchased paddy from Market Committees Bassi Pathana, Samrala, Samana etc. The Secretary, Market Committee, Lalru vide letter dated 22.10.1998 raised a demand of Rs. 49,520/- as market fee and the equal amount as RDF. He also sought explanation for default in making payment. Vide resolution dated 5.2.1999, the Market Committee, Lalru referred the matter for recovery of demand to the Collector Patiala. According to the petitioner, it had engaged the services of one Mr. Anil Kumar who was working as Munshi with it who was managing the firm's paper work. Suddenly he died and the company was not aware about any notices/recovery. It was by letter dated 27.7.1999 sent by the Market Committee, Lalru that the petitioner came to know about the resolution of the committee. The petitioner filed appeal before the Secretary, Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board. Since the petitioner had already paid the market fee to the respective market committees, it submitted the K1 forms certifying payment of market fee and RDF to the Market Committee, Lalru. The Secretary dismissed the appeal vide order dated 21.12.2000, Annexure P.3. According to the petitioner, principles of natural justice have not been followed while passing the impugned order. The respondent committee has not considered Rule 30 of the Rules which clearly states that no market fee is leviable in case it has been paid in other notified areas within the State of Punjab. Hence the petitioner is before this Court through the present petition.
(2.) A written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by Secretary Market Committee, Lalru. A preliminary objection has been raised to the effect that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of revision under Section 42 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (in short, "the Act") against the order passed by the Board or any of its officers. On merits, it has been inter alia stated that the petitioner has not given any detail of purchase and payment of market fee/RDF. The forms were not submitted in time and were unsigned. On these premises, prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;