SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of five writ petitions bearing CWP Nos. 3652, 3653, 3654, 3655 and 3656 of 3007 filed by the Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner-Corporation') against the common judgment dated 13.09.2005 (Annexure P8) passed by respondent No.1 rejecting the claim petitions for refund of the excess amount of market fees paid by the petitioner- Corporation. CWP No. 3652 of 2007 relates to the recovery of amount of Rs. 36899.85 and Rs. 542.80 which was paid excess @ 1% for the year 1978-79. CWP No. 3653 of 2007 relates to the recovery of amount of Rs. 6111.26 and Rs. 5520.00 which was paid excess @ 1% for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively. CWP No. 3654 of 2007 relates to the recovery of amount of Rs. 6111.26 and Rs. 5520.00 which was paid excess @ 1% for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively. CWP No. 3655 of 2007 relates to the recovery of amount of Rs. 42791.52 and Rs. 542.80 which was paid excess @ 1% for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively. CWP No. 3656 of 2007 relates to the recovery of amount of Rs. 13311.91 and Rs. 648.60 which was paid excess @ 1% for the years 1978-79 and 1979-80, respectively.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner-Corporation was a licensee under the provisions of Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It had been dealing with the sale and purchase of the agriculture produce and had paid the market fees within the notified market area at the relevant time under the provisions of the Act. Prior to the year 1975, the rate of the market fees prescribed under the Act was Rs. 1.50 per hundred. It was enhanced to Rs.2/- per hundred by Punjab Agricultural Produce (Amendment) Act No.14 of 1975. Subsequently, again the rate of market fee was further increased from Rs.2/- to Rs.3/- per hundred by Amendment Act No.22 of 1978. The various licensees, including the petitioner-Corporation challenged the enhancement in the market fees in bunch of writ petitions. Ultimately, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kewal Krishan Puri and another v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1980 SC 1008 upheld only enhancement of fees from Rs.1.50 to Rs. 2/- per hundred as valid and struck down the further increase of market fees from Rs. 2/- to Rs. 3/- brought vide Amendment Act No. 22 of 1978 as invalid and unconstitutional. Subsequently, vide a common judgment rendered in M/s. Shiv Shankar Dal Mills etc. v. The State of Haryana and others, AIR 1980 SC 1037, the Supreme Court issued direction to the respective Market Committees to refund the enhanced market fees paid by the licensees. According to the said direction, the claims for refund were to be filed before the Registrar of this Court. In pursuance of the said decision, the petitioner-Corporation filed five claim petitions, as indicated above, for refund of the excess market fees.
(3.) THE respondent-Market Committee contested the claims of the petitioner- Corporation on the ground that in view of the provisions of Section 23-A of the Act, the petitioner-Corporation is not entitled to claim the refund as it had sold the agriculture produce in question to the subsequent buyers in subsequent years at a higher price and thus passed on the burden of the market fees, the refund of which has been claimed, to the subsequent buyers. Before the Registrar, the petitioner-Corporation was given full opportunity to prove that it has not passed on the burden of the enhanced market fees to the subsequent buyers. In support of its claim, the petitioner-Corporation has examined Jasbir Chand, Senior Assistant, Accounts (CW1), who had tendered into evidence his affidavit (Ex.C1), mentioning the amount of market fees paid and claim made in the claim petition on the basis of statements of accounts (Ex.C3 and Ex.C4). However, in cross-examination, the said witness inter-alia stated that he had no record of total sale and purchase of the commodity during the relevant period. Besides, the petitioner-Corporation has also placed on record certain documents.;