M.M.KUMAR, J. - (1.) THIS petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 6.3.2006 (P-8), passed by the Financial Commissioner Development and Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Agriculture Department-respondent No. 2, under Section 42 of the Punjab Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for brevity, 'the Act'), holding that the assessing authority has wrongly imposed market fee and Rural Development Fee (RDF) on respondent No. 3 firm. The revision petition filed by respondent No. 3 firm has been allowed and the order dated 5.8.2005 (P-5), passed by the appellate authority, assessment order as well as notice dated 11.3.2004 (P-3), passed by the Market Committee, Amloh-petitioner No. 2 have been set aside.
(2.) THE facts which have led to the filing of the instant petition are that respondent No. 3 firm had obtained a license under Section 10 of the Act to dealing in purchase, sale, storage and processing of agricultural produce in the notified area of Market Committee Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib- petitioner No. 2. Respondent No. 3 firm purchased 12640 quintals of wheat, valued at Rs. 73,52,495/-, from the Food Corporation of India (FCI) under release order dated 23.12.2002 and lifted the same from the FCI Depot, Amloh. It has been alleged that respondent No. 3 firm sold the wheat in question to M/s Bhagwati Exports, Naya Bazar, Delhi and M/s Mahavir Trading, Naya Bazar, Delhi without furnishing the release order, paying the market fee and RDF as well as submitting 'KK Forms' to the petitioner Market Committee seeking exemption from paying the market fee and RDF. The wheat in question was never allowed to be exported outside the State by the petitioner Market Committee. On 16.1.2003 and 11.2.2003, the trucks loaded with wheat in question were detained by the officials of Ghanour Barrier and it was only then revealed that respondent No. 3 firm sold the wheat without making payment of market fee of Rs. 1,47,050/- and RDF amounting to Rs. 1,47,050/- On 13.2.2003, petitioner No. 2 Market Committee asked respondent No. 3 Firm to pay market fee and RDF or to submit 'KK Forms' and a certificate from the agency from which the wheat was purchased to ensure that the selling agency had paid market fee and RDF to the Market Committee on the wheat. Subsequently, notice dated 27.6.2003 was issued to respondent No. 3 firm to produce its accounts books. Respondent No. 3 sought one month's time to produce its accounts books on the pretext that the same were lying with their Chartered Accountant, which were not produced even after issuance of second notice dated 19.8.2003. The Assessing Authority then issued notice dated 20.11.2003, under Rule 31(4) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (for brevity, 'the Rules'), which was not received by respondent No. 3 firm and subsequently two more notices dated 11.12.2003 and 22.12.2003 were sent and affixed at the premises of the partner of the firm. Then Assessing Authority passed an order dated 11.3.2004 directing respondent No. 3 firm to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,71,400/- (Rs. 1,47,050/- on account of Market fee, Rs. 1,47,050/- on account of RDF, Rs. 1,47,050/- as penalty and Rs. 30,250/- as interest on RDF @ 18% p.a.) on or before 18.3.2004 (P-3). Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 3 firm filed an appeal before the Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board, Chandigarh (P-4), which was dismissed on 5.8.2005 (P-5). The revision petition filed by respondent No. 3 firm before the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab- respondent No. 2, under Section 42 of the Act, has been allowed. The view of the Financial Commissioner emerges from the concluding para of the order, which reads as under :- "...... The petitioner sold the said wheat to M/s Bhagwati Exports Naya Bazaar Delhi and Shri Mahavir Traders, Naya Bazaar, Delhi directly from the depot godown. From the letter written by Inspector, Punsup, Amloh, dated 3rd March, 2006, which was produced in the court, it is clear that Punsup does not issue 'KK' Forms and Market Fee/RDF stands paid on the above said wheat at the time of purchase in the area of Market Committee, Amloh. The certificate dated 28.2.03 sent by Punsup Amloh addressed to the Secretary of respondent Committee also shows that he market fee and RDF stand paid on the wheat at the time of purchase in the area of Market Committee Amloh. Thus, the question of submission of 'KK' Forms does not arise. In this way the assessing authority had wrongly imposed Market Fee and RDF on the firm. Keeping in view the above facts the Revision Petition is allowed and impugned order dated 5.8.2005, the assessment order dated nil issued by Market Committee Amloh, and Demand Notice dated 11.3.2004 are set aside." The Revisional Authority has recorded a categorical finding to conclude that Punsup did not issue KK form and market fee/RDF was paid on the wheat sold at the time of purchase in the area of Market Committee, Amloh. The certificate dated 28.2.2003 sent by the Punsup, Amloh addressed to the Secretary of the Committee also authenticate the payment of market fee/RDF on the wheat at the time of purchase in the area of Market Committee, Amloh. In the face of the afore-mentioned finding it could not be successfully argued that the market fee or RDF has not been paid and the order passed by the Revisional Authority suffers from any illegality warranting interference of this Court. There is thus no merit in this petition and the same is consequently dismissed. Petition dismissed.;