KEWAL KRISHAN PURI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Devi Dass Gopal Krishan (Pr) Ltd. , petitioner No. 2, is a private limited company registered under the Companies Act and petitioner No. 1 is its Director. The petitioners through this petition filed under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India have called in question the constitutional legality and validity of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Act, 1975 (Punjab Act No. 14 of 1975), copy Annexure P-4 to the petition, (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment Act), the telegraphic instructions issued by the chairman, Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (copy Annexure P-5 to the petition), Sections 23, 26, 27 and 28 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and rule 29 of the Punjab agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the 'rules' ).

(2.) THE State of Punjab enacted the Act in the year 1961'. Section 23 of the Act authorizes levy of market fee. Under this provision a Committee was empowered to levy fee but a higher statutory limit was prescribed as 50 np. tor every one hundred rupees. Later on, Section 23 had been the subject-matter of several amendments. By the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment)Act, 1969 (Punjab Act No. 25 of 1969), copy Annexure P. 1, the market fee was fixed at Re. 1. 00 per one hundred rupees. By the Punjab Agricultural Produce markets (Amendment) Act, 1973 (Punjab Act No. 28 of 1973), copy Annexure p. 2, the rate of market fee was enhanced to Rs. 1. 50p. Again, by the Punjab agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Ordinance, 1974 (Punjab Ordinance no. 4 of 1974 ). which was later on converted into Act 13 of 1974, the rate of market fee was enhanced to Rs. 2. 25 P. for every hundred rupees. This action for enhancement was challenged in this Court successfully and by a Division bench of this Court in M/s. Hanuman Dall and General Mills, Hissar v. State of haryana, AIR 1976 Punj. and Har. 1, the Ordinance and the Amendment Act 13 of 1974 were struck down. Thereafter by the impugned Amendment Act, the market Committees were authorized to levy on ad valorem basis fees on the agricultural produce at the rate not exceeding Rs. 2-25 P. per one hundred rupees. Further, telegraphic instructions were issued to all the Market committees in the State of Punjab to start charging fee at 2 per cent ad valorem on all items of agricultural produce bought or sold by licensees with effect from 23rd of August 1975 (copy of the telegraphic instructions is attached with the petition as Annexure P. 5 ).

(3.) THE petitioners, after tracing the aforesaid history, have alleged in the petition that the income from the market fee has been converted into a source of revenue, that the Market Committee, Moga has collected from the petitioners alone over Rs. 7 lakhs of rupees in the past, that the Market Committee, Moga has rendered no service to the petitioners in the past ten years, that the Market committee, Moga did not fix any fee nor did it convene any meeting and on the basis of unauthorized directions from the Board has started charging market fee at the rate Rs. 2/- per one hundred rupees, that there must be correlationship in the amount collected as fee and the amount spent in rendering services, i. e. , there must be an element of quid pro quo between the licensees and the market Committee, that the Market Committee have surplus funds with the result that the Board donated Rs. 1/-crore to medical College, Faridkot, that all the Committees have been directed to deposit all their amounts in the government Treasury in the year 1974, that the Agricultural Board and the committee had given rupees five crores to the Punjab State Co-operative supply and Marketing Federation (known as 'markfed') without charging any interest and the loan is interest-free, because this money was lying surplus with the Committees, and that the primary object of the Act is to protect the producers from being exploited by middlemen, profiteers and to enable them to secure a fair return for their produce. The petitioners, on the basis of the aforesaid facts, have enumerated various legal grounds on the basis of which the legality and the constitutionality of the Amendment Act as well as certain other provisions of the Act have been challenged.