Kambli 1 wp1768.95 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1768 OF 1995 ... Fruits Merchants Association and ors. ...Petitioners v/s. 1.State of Maharashtra 2.Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Committee ...Respondents ,... Mr.M.M.Vashi for the Petitioner. Ms.Madhubala Kajale, AGP for State. Mr.Y.R.Naik for Respondent No.2. Mr.B.V.Bukhari for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM: D.K.Deshmukh & K.K.TATED, JJ DATED: 11th February,2011 P.C.: 1. This petition is filed by the persons who claim to be working as commission agents dealing in fruits and vegetables under the Respondent No.2-Market Committee. Kambli 2 wp1768.95 The grievance of the Petitioners in this petition is that the Respondent No.2-Market Committee is forcing them to pay weighment charges without actually doing the work of weighing. The Market Committee has filed a detailed affidavit disclosing as to how according to Market Committee the process of marketing of fruits and vegetables is undertaken in its market-yard. It appears to be the case of the Market Committee also that the Mapadis are not doing any actual work of weighment in the process of marketing of fruits in the market yard. 1. 2. This position is, however, disputed by the Trade-union of the Mapadis. An affidavit has been filed before us on behalf of the Trade-union and the Trade- union has described as how the marketing of the fruits takes place in the market yard and they have claimed that Mapadis are paid the weighment charges only after they actually carry out the work of weighment or measurement. Kambli 3 wp1768.95 3. The dispute is on a question of fact that whether in the market yard of the Respondent No.2-Market Committee, weighmen do actual work of weighing or measuring in the process of marketing of fruits and vegetables. In our opinion, this being a pure question of fact, which is a disputed question of fact, cannot be decided in this petition. The Petitioners will have to raise that dispute whenever, according to them, the Market Committee demands any payment of weighment charges from them without the weighmen actually performing their duty. Such dispute will have to be raised at every stages when demand is made by the Market Committee and no blanket order can be made in a writ petition of this nature. In our opinion, therefore, the direction sought in this petition by the petitioners cannot be issued. The Petitioners will have to raise that dispute in accordance with the provisions of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Act and the Rules framed thereunder, in case according to them any payment is demanded from them towards weighment charges without Kambli 4 wp1768.95 any weighman actually carrying out the work of weighing and measuring. 3. It was also urged before us on behalf of the Respondent No.3-Trade Union that actual weighment charges are not paid by the commission agents, who are Petitioners, but the weighment charges are being recovered from the sellers or purchasers of the agricultural produce and the commission agents merely transmit that amount to the Market Committee. It was also their contention that therefore as the burden of charge does not fall on the commission agents, they do not have any locus to challenge its recovery. If the commission agents are allowed to recover the weighment charges from the sellers or the purchasers of the agricultural produce and they are not made liable to hand over the amount to the Market Committee, then it will amount to unjust enrichment of the commission agents. We, however, do not propose to go into this controversy, because according to us if the commission agents want to challenge levy of weighment charges, then they will have to do it on an independent basis Kambli 5 wp1768.95 at each occasion when such recovery is sought to be made by the Market Committee, in accordance with the A.P.M.C. Act and the Rules framed thereunder. Petition is, therefore, disposed of. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (K.K.TATED, J.)