PALLI, J. - (1.) THE petitioners-Firm at the relevant time was engaged in the business to purchase raw cotton from the market and then to process it in their Chachan Cotton and Ginning Factory. Under the provisions of Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act,1961, the State framed Rules in the year 1963 wherein the provision for levy of market fee on agricultural produce bought and sold in the market was levied. A licence for sale and purchase of the produce is required under the Rules and the firm was further required to pay such market fee as specified in the schedule. In item no. 1 of the said schedule fibre contains "cotton" (ginned and unginned) and in oil seed it also contains cotton seed. An amendment was made in the schedule on 23. 04. 1977 and therein only raw cotton (un-ginned) was kept in the schedule and ginned cotton as well as cotton seed was taken out from its purview. Both these items existed in the schedule before the amendment. THE case of the petitioner is that they used to purchase raw cotton from the market and market fee as required on this item used to be regularly paid. THE dispute is for the years 1975-76 and 1976-77. It is an admitted case of the parties that the petitioners never paid any market fee on the sale of ginned cotton and cotton seed in the year 1979. THE petitioners were asked to pay market fee on ginned cotton and cotton seed for these years on their refusal to pay, a complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate under section 28 (2) of the aforesaid Act. which has been placed as Annx. 1. THE complaint was filed on account of non-payment of market fee on these items. THE case of the petitioner is that the firm purchased raw cotton by processing the same, ginned cotton and cotton seed were taken out and sold by them during the above mentioned period and,therefore,they were not liable to pay any market fee as it was raw cotton which after processing was converted into these two items and since market fee on raw cotton purchased from the agriculturist has already been paid, no fee as such could be levied. THE petitioners filed a revision against the cognizance in the above mentioned complaint which revision petition stands dismissed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Hanumangarh on 19th April,1983. THE reason given by the learned court is that during the relevant period ginned cotton as well as un-ginned cotton and cotton seed were included in the schedule to the Act. THE petitioner thus prays that the respondent No. 2 be restrained from realising any market fee on these two items for the relevant period and the respondents be further restrained from continuing the prosecution of the petitioners pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh.
(2.) IN reply by respondent No. 2. i. e. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, it has been averred that the main business of the firm was to purchase raw cotton and after processing the same the petitioners sold out in the market seeds and ginned cotton. It is further said that the market fee is leviable on the agricultural produce bought and sold in the market. It is further said that under item No. l of the schedule raw cotton and ginned cotton are separately recorded for two separate commodities as in item no. 4 where oil seeds and oil are separate commodities. IN item No. 4 cotton seeds (Binola) and oil both are recorded. Meaning thereby, these are separate commodities and the firm was required to deposit the Mandi Fee on raw cotton, ginned cotton, cotton seeds and cotton seeds oil separately. The case of the petitioners for the relevant period is before the amendment came on the scene and hence the petitioners could not escape their liability from paying the market fee on these commodities. IN para 12 of the reply it is said that it is the liability of the petitioners-Firm to have deposited the Mandi fee after entering it in the books of accounts within one week and that these commodities have been sold by the petitioners and they have already collected the fee from the purchasers which is apparent from the photo-stat copy of the documents prepared by the then Secretary of the Committe and thus it becomes the responsibility of the petitioners to deposit the same in the Committee since this fee already stands collected by the petitioners. Reliance in this respect has been placed on Annx. R/l. After a reading of the pleadings and the relevant material, I notice that Mandi fee is Collected from the purchasers and it is the responsibility of the seller to collect the Mandi fee from the purchasers and then to deposit with the Committee. It has not been denied that the petitioners have not actually collected the fee from the purchasers and they have not wilfully deposited with the respondents. The fact is further established from the judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated 19. 04. 1983 to which no challenge has been made by the petitioner and the respondent have placed its photo-stat copy as Annx. R/2. No challenge to the vires has been made nor any argument in this respect has been advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has pressed in service a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 1008, (1) whereas learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed reliance on another decision of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in A. I. R. 1983 S. C. 1246 (2) I have carefully gone through these two decisions. In the decision reported latter it has been held that if the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock are sold within the market maintained by the market Committee, it is liable to pay market fee on each such sale. In my considered opinion there is hardly any point least a law point which arises for determination in the present case: On the facts and admitted position as it emerges out, the petitioners had charged market fee from the purchasers as is clear from their record Annx. R/l. Having collected the market fee on the sale of the items there was no justification on the part of the petitioners not to deposit the same with the respondents as required by the rules. Again the petitioner appears to be misconceived. The dispute is regarding the levy of market fee on these two items of the years 1975-76 and 1976-77,i. e. . , prior to the amendment. The petitioners woke up only when a complaint was filed before the Judicial Magistrate in accordance with law in the year 1979, which they in their wisdom challenged it by way of revision before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, which petition was dismissed vide judgment Annx. R/2. dated 19th April,1983 and intesretingly no challenge has been made to this judgment of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge and proceedings are now stated to be pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Hanumangarh and this writ petition has been filed on 17. 05. 1983. The petition is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches and delay. As noticed above there is no challenge to the vires nor any such argument has been advanced. In view of what has been stated above, the writ petition is dismissed with costs. .;