Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition was filed by the petitioner in the year 2005, challenging the instructions dated 20.8.1990 (Annexure P -10) issued by the Managing Director, Haryana Rural Development Fund, Administrative Board, Chandigarh, addressed to all the Secretaries of the Market Committees in the State of Haryana, being illegal, unjust and arbitrary; and also for setting aside the show cause notices dated 5.1.1991, 2.9.1994, 21.10.1994 and 19.11.2004 (Annexures P -1, P -3, P -5 and P -7 respectively); and the letter dated 24.9.2004 (Annexure P -9) to the extent of demand of Rs. 16,85,963/ - being made from the petitioner by the respondents on account of cess payment under the Haryana Rural Development Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') and the Rules framed thereunder and interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payment; and also for setting aside the order dated 20.7.2000 (Annexure P -13), passed by the Director, Development and Panchayat, Haryana (as Appellate Authority), dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner being illegal, arbitrary and mala fide and violative of the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.
(2.) ON February 23, 2006, this petition was dismissed in limine by this Court, by passing the following order: We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The appeal was filed by the petitioner after a delay of five years and the writ petition has also been filed belatedly. The story put -forward by the petitioner that the order had not been conveyed to him etc. is clearly unbelievable. Dismissed. Feeling aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed SLP (C) No. 8177 of 2006, which was later on converted in Civil Appeal No. 4888 of 2007, in which the aforesaid order was set aside by the Supreme Court, while observing that the same was not a speaking and reasoned order, and remitted the case to this Court for fresh disposal of the writ petition by passing a speaking and reasoned order. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned orders as well as the contents of the petition.
(3.) IN the year 1986, the Act was enacted and under Section 5 of the Act, 1% cess on ad valorem basis was levied on the sale proceeds of agriculture produce bought or sold or brought for processing in the notified market area committee. The constitutional validity of the Act was challenged by the various dealers including the petitioner. During the pendency of those proceedings, stay of recovery of the cess under the Act was granted. Ultimately, those writ petitions were dismissed, and even the SLP filed against the judgment of this Court was also dismissed on 4.5.1990. Thereafter, instructions were issued vide letter dated 20.8.1990 (Annexure P -10) directing all the Secretaries of the Market Committees in the State of Haryana to recover the arrears of cess, which was to be paid under the Act, from the dealers in 12 quarterly instalments, within three years (i.e. from 1.7.1990 to 30.6.1993) and first instalment was to be paid on 1.10.1990. It was further directed that in case any dealer fails to deposit the instalments of due amount in time, no relaxation of any sort will be given to him and the amount which will be found due against him shall be recovered along with penalty as per Rule 3 (1), 3 (2) read with Rule 3 (9) of the Haryana Rural Development rules, 1987. It was further decided that recovery of the due amount shall be made from the defaulting dealers by adding 18% interest thereon, which shall be applicable from 1.7.1990 till the fee amount is actually paid. It was also decided that in case, the dealer fails to deposit the amount, then the recovery shall be effected under the Land Revenue Act.;