A. K. MATHUR, J. - (1.) SINCE all these writ petitions involve common questions of law and facts, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.
(2.) THE principal question, which involves in all these writ petitions, is as to whether the principal of quid pro quo is applicable under the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (referred to hereinafter as the 'act of 1961') and in the matter of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1963 (referred to hereinafter as the Rules of 1963' ). For the convenient disposal of these writ petitions, the writ petitions are divided in two categories, one, the writ petitions, filed by the whole-salers, and the other filed by the retailers. For the convenient disposal of these writ petitions, first the cases of whole salers are taken up and for that purpose the facts given in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4431/1989 : Gokal Chand vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. are taken into consideration. The petitioner is a resident of Varada District Sirohi situated within the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner's firm carries on its business in agricultural produce at Varada situated within the Panchayat Samiti, Sirohi. The State of Rajasthan issued a Notification on 21. 4. 1977 which was published in the Rajasthan Gazette dated 28. 4. 1977 whereby (he area of Panchayat Samiti, Sheoganj and Sirohi District Sirohi were placed under the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sheoganj under the Act of 1961. Thereafter, the State Government issued another Gazette Notification dated 2. 1. 1979, which was published on 18. 1. 1979 creating sub-market yards at Sirohi, Jawal, Kalandari and Las. The petitioners' allegation is that neither Mandi yard nor sub- Mandi Yard have been established at the petitioner's village where the petitioner is carrying on its business. It is alleged that the petitioner is not liable to take licence under the Act and to pay the market fee under the Act and the Rules as no facilities worth the name are being provided by the respondents where the petitioner is carrying on its business of agricultural produce. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition that since no facilities are being provided by the Sheoganj Mandi, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to take a licence and pay the market fees as there is no quid pro quo. A return has been filed on behalf of the respondents and the respondents have pointed out in the return that the petitioner is a trader, who deals in the sale and purchase of agricultural produce in the notified market area, and, therefore, he is bound to take a licence under the Act and the Rules. It is further submitted that the question of providing facilities to every individual as provided in Section 19 of the Act is not a pre- condition for obtaining a licence. It is also pointed out that obtaining of the licence is a pre-requisite condition for doing business of agricultural produce in the notified market area. It is also pointed out that whole area has been notified as market area under Section 4 of the Act and once the area where the petitioner is carrying on its business has been declared as market area then he is bound to take a licence and if a trader fails to obtain a licence then he incurs a penalty under Section 28 of the Act. It has also been pointed out that after declaration of the market area, a committee has been established, proper budget has been prepared spending the money collected as market fee for development of market-yard. The budget expenditure has been placed on the record as Annexs. 1 to 3 respectively. A perusal of expenditure would show that the money has been spent on development of market area in planned manner. It is alleged that it is not at all the requirement of law that every village in the market area should have an office of the committee. The main office is situated at the principal market yard at Sheoganj and sub-markets are at Sirohi, Jawal and Las. It has also been pointed out that the market committee proposes to provide the necessary facilities progressively after raising funds to other place in the market area. It has also been submitted that it is not necessary to establish the correlationship of the fee and the services rendered by a mathematical formula. The main purpose under the Act to be regulate the buying and selling of the agricultural produce by establishing market and market yards so that the agriculturists can secure better and adequate prices of their Produce and their illiteracy and ignorance are not exploited. It is also alleged that the petitioner is a middle man and the fee does not come out of his pocket and he has to charge it from the purchasers in the course of the transactions and transfer the same to the committee. All such fees collected make a marketing fund out of that fund the necessary facilities are to be provided in the area.
(3.) THERE is another batch of writ petitions which relate to retailers who carry on their business of agricultural produce. For the convenient disposal of this category of cases, the facts given in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4434/1989 : Babu Lal vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. are taken into consideration : The petitioner is a resident of Paldi District Sirohi situated within the State of Rajasthan. The petitioner's firm is carrying on its business in agricultural produce at Paldi situated within the Panchayat Samiti, Sheoganj. The petitioner is a retail trader. It is alleged that he is not liable to take a licence. He has also made a grievance that there is no principle of quid pro quo involved in the present case. In addition to that, it is alleged that under explanation to section 4 of the Act of 1961, the retailer is not liable to take a licence under the Act. The respondents have filed a reply and contested the position. It has been submitted that the principle of quid pro quo is not applicable mathematically. It is also denied that the petitioner is not liable to take a licence being a retailer. ;