- (1.) The instant appeal has been filed under S. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 against the judgment and order dated 5-11-1993 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2541/92. By the aforesaid judgment and order, the writ petition of respondent No. 1 had partly been allowed holding that the appellant-Samiti can charge the market fee from respondent No. 1 but the appellant-Samiti cannot insist that the respondent No. 1 has to take the agricultural produce through the principal market yard/market yard to its manufacturing unit.
(2.) The respondent No. 1, carries on the business of oil mill and admittedly his oil mill is situated within the market area notified under the provisions of Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, hereinafter called 'the Act', was served a show cause notice on 24-5-90 contained in Annex.-1 to the writ petition to explain why he has not shifted to principal market yard in spite of the fact that he had been allotted a shop therein and if his explanation was not found satisfactory, why action should not be initiated against him and in the meanwhile, his licence granted under S. 14 of the said Act was suspended for a period of six months. The order of suspension of the licence was also communicated to the respondent No. 1/petitioner vide order dt. 8-6-1990 contained in Annex.-2 to the writ petition. Respondent No. 1/petitioner made an application and gave an undertaking dated 3-7-90 contained in Annex.R.2/9 that he would shift after the rainy season to the principal market yard and abide by the provisions of the Act and the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1963, hereinafter called 'the Rules'. There had also been a meeting of traders and officers of the appellant-Samiti on 3-12-90 wherein a large number of traders including the present respondent No. 1/petitioner participated and gave an undertaking that they would shift their business within the principal market yard by 8-12-90. The said memorandum of compromise/agreement is contained in Annex.R.2/10. On the basis of the aforesaid undertakings, the licence of the respondent No. 1 was renewed under the provisions of S. 14 of the Act. Instead of complying with the undertaking and the terms of agreement, the respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before this court praying that the appellant-Samiti be restrained from charging the market fee from him; restraining the appellant- Samiti from insisting that sale and purchase should be made from the market yard; restraining the appellant-Samiti from insisting on the respondent No. 1's shifting his business to the market yard and further restraining the appellant-Samiti to cancel or suspend the licence of respondent No. 1 and to issue a further direction to the appellant- Samiti to renew the licence of the respondent No. 1 from time to time. In the writ petition, various allegations had been made against the appellant-Samiti particularly sufficient facilities had not been provided under the market yard and charges of exhorbitant fee etc. The appellant- Samiti filed a counter-affidavit controverting all the allegations. The appellant also took a stand that respondent No. 1 had given the undertaking to shift his business and entered an agreement with the appellant-Samiti and, therefore, his writ petition should not be entertained as he did not comply with the said undertaking/agreement. The learned single Judge vide his impugned judgment and order held as under: i. Once a market area has been declared under the Act then no sale and purchase can take place other than the market area i.e. either in principal market yard or in sub-market yard; ii. All the sales and purchases of the agricultural produce taken within the said market area are subject to market fee; iii. The commercial establishment of the respondent No. 1/petitioner was admittedly within the market area and, thus, even if he brings the oil seeds from outside the market yard then too, he has no option but to pay the market fee; iv. Rule 64 requires that all the produce which are brought in the market area for sale, they have to be sold in the market area and in no other place; v. If the market fee has already been paid as the agricultural produce has been purchased from other market yard then under Rule 58 of the Rules, the trader shall produce a declaration in Form 11 in the prescribed manner that on the notified agricultural produce, fee has already been levied in other market area of the Samiti; vi. However, the Market Committee cannot insist that the trader/respondent No. 1 shall have to take the agricultural produce through the principal market yard to its manufacturing unit.
(3.) The appellant being aggrieved from the last observation that the trader cannot be forced to take the agricultural produce through the market yard if it has been purchased from outside the said market yard, has preferred this appeal.;