BHANWARLAL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Full Bench has been constituted to hear this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on a reference being made by a Division Bench of this Court which initially heard this petition. The Division Bench was of the opinion that there was a conflict between two Division Bench judgments of this Court, one reported in Roopchand v. K. U. M. Samiti, Raipur (1975 MP LJ 326) : (1975 Tax LR 1932) and the other delivered in Girwarlal v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Committee. (MP No. 37 of 1967 decided on 10th April, 1970). The matter was therefore, placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of a Full Bench to hear this petition. That is how this petition came up for hearing before us.

(2.) The material facts giving rise to this petition briefly are as follows : The petitioner carried on at the material time, the business of buying and sellintt agricultural produce at Petlawad, District Jhabua. Under the provisions of the M. P. Agricultural Produce Markets Act. 1960 the State Government constituted a Market Committee by the name of Krishi Upai Mandi Samiti. Petalawad. hereinafter referred to as the 'Market Committee', for regulating the purchase and sale of agricultural produce in the market established under the provisions of that Act at Petalawad. On 1st June. 1973. M. P. Krishi Upai Mandi Adhinivam. 1972, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' came into force. By Section 82 of the Act the M. P. Attricultural Produce Markets Act. 1960,was repealed, but the Market Committees constituted under that Act were to be deemed to have been constituted under the provisions of the Act. In pursuance of the cowers conferred by Section 19 of the Act, the Market Committee. Petalawad. levied market fees, and the petitioner was called upon to produce his account-books for assessing market fees payable by the petitioner. As the petitioner failed to produce the accounts, he was informed by the notice dated 16th April 1976 (annex. F/2) that in the event of his failure to produce accounts within a week of the receipt of that notice, an estimate of his transactions would be made as stated in the notice and market fees would be assessed on the basis of that estimate. The petitioner did not produce any account-books and made a representation (annex. G/3) to the Director of Agriculture that the Market Committee was not empowered to levy any market fees. However, before the respondent Market Committee could proceed to assess the petitioner, he filed the present petition praying for the issuance of a writ to prohibit the respondent Market Committee from making any recovery under the provisions of the Act.

(3.) The first contention advanced by Shri Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner, was that Section 21 of the Act no doubt empowered the Market Committee to make an assessment with regard to fees payable by a person under Section 19 of the Act if that person failed to produce accounts as directed but no manner having been prescribed as contemplated by Section 19 of the Act the Market Committee had no power to proceed to make best judgment assessment under Section 21 of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Girwar-lal v. Krishi Upai Mandi Committee (M. P. No. 37 of 1967).