- (1.) The petitioner is carrying on business in wheat, wheat products, vegetable oil, Khandsari and Sulphur Sugar in Ganj Bazar, Rewari, District Mohindergarh. The Market Committee, Rewari (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) has been constituted under Section 6 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioner is a licensee from the Committee under Section 6 of the Act. The Committee has levied market fee in its area. The petitioner received a notice dated September 28, 1972, from the Committee under rule 31(1)/29(3) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) to the effect that the petitioner had not sent a report and had not paid market fee on 100 bags of Khand received on September 12, 1972, by truck No. D.L.G.-1897. The petitioner sent a reply to the said notice intimating that it had purchased Sulphur Sugar which was not an item included in the Schedule to the Act and so no market fee was leviable thereon. It received another notice/reminder in continuation of the aforesaid notice saying that the reply furnished by it was not proper and show why an action be not taken under rule 39 of the Rules. Nothing further was heard in that matter from the Committee. It again received another notice No. 2693, dated November 30, 1972 (Annexure P-1) from the Committee to the effect that it had been found regarding certain items mentioned in the notice that market fee had not been paid and thus the provisions of rules 29(3) and 31(1) of the Rules had been contravened and that the petitioner had made itself liable under rule 39 of the rules. Within 2/3 days of the receipt of the notice (Annexure P-1) the petitioner explained the matter to the respondent saying that item No. 4 did not relate to it, that item Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 7 related to Sulphur Sugar and the same had been shown as such in the bilty and that item No. 8 although relates to Sulphur Sugar yet it had been shown in the bilty as Khand. It further represented that the Committee could not levy any fee on the aforesaid items. The Inspector of the Committee examined the books of the petitioner and after a short time it received a letter No. 4175, dated December 1, 1973 (Annexure P-3) levying a market fee of Rs. 4,496.35 P. on Sulphur Sugar and Rs. 33.84 P. on other items. Thus, a total amount of Rs. 4,530.19 P. was claimed as market fee from it. The petitioner sent a reply to the aforesaid notice. It again received notice dated January 23, 1974 (Annexure P-4) relating to items of Khand (Sulphur Sugar), which required it to show cause as to why action should not be taken against it under rule 39 of the Rules. It sent a reply to the aforesaid notice stating therein that Sulphur Sugar was not liable to market fee. The petitioner has challenged the notices (Annexures P-1, P-3 and P-4). The writ petition has been contested by the respondent.
(2.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that Sugar, Khandsari and Sulphur Sugar are commercially different items although broadly they fall within the definition of Sugar. He submits that the Market Committee can impose market fee on Khandsari. According to him, Sulphur Sugar is different from Khandsari and, therefore, no market fee could be levied on Sulphur Sugar by the Committee. I have heard the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In another Civil Writ No. 4513 of 1974 (M/s Om Parkash Ved Parkash v. State of Haryana etc.) which is being decided today along with this writ petition, I have held that Sulphur Sugar belongs to the family of Khandsari and, therefore, the Committee is entitled to levy market fee on it. The same arguments were advanced in this case. It may, however, be mentioned that one additional fact has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner and it is this that the octroi and surcharge on Sulphur Sugar is Rs. 2.10 P. per quintal, whereas on Khandsari it is 0.52-1/2 Paise only per quintal. Even if it be assumed that the Municipal Committee is charging octroi at higher rate on Sulphur Sugar that will not be sufficient to hold that it ceases to be Khandsari. I have given detailed reasons in M/s Om Parkash Ved Parkash's case for holding that Sulphur Sugar belongs to the family of Khandsari. In view of this sole fact it is not possible for me to hold that Sulphur Sugar becomes a different commodity and ceases to be Khandsari. I, therefore, reject the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
(3.) The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that while levying market fee the Committee performs quasi-judicial functions. He further submits that it is required of quasi-judicial tribunals that they should pass reasoned orders. No such order has been passed in the present case. He also submits that no legal notices were served and no proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to show cause against the notices according to rules. In the circumstances, according to him, notices were illegal.;