Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) This order shall dispose of a batch of 15 cases bearing CWP Nos. 27156, 27228, 27810, 27829, 27836, 27887, 27915, 27930, 27964, 27966, 28114, 28135, 28214, 27326 and 27333 of 2013. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 27156 of 2013.
(2.) The facts, as narrated in the petition, are that on 25.01.1997, the petitioner purchased wheat of Rs. 4,42,080/ - from the Food Corporation of India, Sangrur (for short "FCI, Sangrur") in the open auction under the Open Market Sale Scheme. The petitioner is alleged to have paid the price of the wheat along with taxes, market fees and the Rural Development Fund (RDF) to the FCI, Sangrur, who had further paid the market fee and the RDF to the concerned Market Committee. The petitioner received a notice dated 11.11.1997, followed by another notice dated 15.05.1998, asking it to produce all the records regarding the transaction of purchase and sale of the wheat, to which the petitioner filed a reply on 25.09.1998 to respondent No. 4, in which it was averred that though the petitioner had appeared before the Secretary, Market Committee, Jagraon and produced the records but the same were never perused. It was further averred that the entire market fee and the RDF was paid to the FCI at Sangrur, which was subsequently paid by it to the Market Committee concerned. It is further averred that respondent No. 4 again issued a letter dated 17.02.1999, requiring the petitioner to appear before it. The petitioner appeared and produced the entire records. However, after a period of 3 years on 25.09.2002, respondent No. 4 again sent a letter to the petitioner for producing the record of the year 1996 -97, to which the petitioner filed a reply dated 01.10.2002 reiterating the payment of market fee and RDF on the purchase of the wheat. Thereafter, the respondents served Form 'O' on 11.07.2003 under Rule 31(4) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (for short "Rules"), which was followed by another letter by respondent No. 4 dated 22.07.2004 and, thereafter, on 09.08.2004, a demand notice was issued under Rule 31(11) of the Rules, holding the petitioner liable to pay the market fee of Rs. 40,278/ - and also imposed the penalty of the same amount, asking the petitioner to pay Rs. 80,556/ - towards the market fee along with interest @ 18% per annum. The said assessment order dated 09.08.2004 was challenged by the petitioner by way of an appeal in which it was urged that the market fee has already been paid to the Market Committee, Sangrur, therefore, they are not liable to pay the market fee again. The said order was set aside on 17.03.2005 and the matter was remanded back to the Assessing Authority, Sangrur. After remand, respondent No. 4 passed the order afresh on 03.05.2005 holding the petitioner liable to pay the market fee, which was again challenged by way of an appeal which was dismissed on 08.01.2007. The petitioner challenged the order dated 03.05.2005 and 08.01.2007 by way of CWP No. 3941 of 2007, which was dismissed on 04.02.2008, with liberty to the petitioner to avail his remedy of revision before the competent authority. The petitioner, therefore, filed the revision petition which was dismissed on 25.09.2013 along with other 14 petitions. The petitioner has, thus, challenged the order dated 03.05.2005 passed by respondent No. 4, order dated 08.01.2007 passed by respondent No. 3 and the order dated 25.09.2013 passed by respondent No. 1, inter alia, on the grounds that once the market fee had been paid by the petitioner at the time when wheat was purchased from FCI, Sangrur within the Market Committee, Sangrur, who had further deposited it with the concerned Market Committee, the respondents cannot hold the petitioner liable to pay the market fee for sale of the said wheat in the area of the Market Committee, Jagraon. In this regard, the petitioner has referred to Rule 30 of the Rules and has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Boards vs. Sh. Ganesh Rice and General Mills, : 1999(1) R.C.R. (Civil) 463, a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and another vs. State of Punjab and another, CWP No. 2291 of 2007, decided on 20.02.2007 and a Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Din Dayal Mahadev Parshad Mahavir vs. Market Committee, Rewari,, 1975 PLJ 274.
(3.) On the other hand, the case of the respondents is that the transaction of wheat relates to the period 1996 -97 purchased by the petitioner from the FCI, Sangrur and, thereafter, the said wheat was brought to the market area of Jagraon for further transaction. It is also alleged that there were total 90 release orders issued by the FCI, Sangrur related to the firms at Jagraon regarding purchase of wheat in 1996 -97, out of which, except for the petitioner -firm(s), all the firms have already produced their records before the Secretary, Market Committee regarding the above said purchase of wheat from the FCI at Sangrur and had paid the market fee. It is also alleged that Rule 29 of the Rules was amended in the year 2002 and the said amendment cannot be applied retrospectively because the transaction relates back to the period 1996 -97 and before 04.09.1998, the market fee and RDF was leviable on each transaction of agricultural produce if the same was not held in the same market area. It is further argued that the un -amended Rule 29 shall be applicable to the transaction in question and in any case Rule 30 would not be applicable because it operates in a different field as Rule 29 is regarding the levy and collection of fee on the sale and purchase of the agricultural produce, whereas Rule 30 deals with the exemption from payment of fee in respect of sale and purchase of any agricultural produce manufactured or extracted from the agricultural produce in respect of which such fee has already been paid. It is also submitted that the judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.;