IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 611 of 2008 (M/S) M/S Star Paper Mills Ltd. . . . . . … . Petitioner. Vs. Uttarakhand Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others … Respondents. WITH Writ Petition No. 628 of 2008 (M/S) M/S Star Paper Mills Ltd. . . . . . … . Petitioner. Vs. Uttarakhand Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others … Respondents. WITH Writ Petition No. 629 of 2008 (M/S) M/S Star Paper Mills Ltd. . . . . . … . Petitioner. Vs. Uttarakhand Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others … Respondents. WITH Writ Petition No. 630 of 2008 (M/S) M/S Star Paper Mills Ltd. . . . . . … . Petitioner. Vs. Uttarakhand Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others … Respondents. WITH Writ Petition No. 631 of 2008 (M/S) M/S Star Paper Mills Ltd. . . . . . … . Petitioner. Vs. Uttarakhand Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others … Respondents. 2 WITH Writ Petition No. 1771 of 2008 (M/S) M/S Star Paper Mills Ltd. . . . . . … . Petitioner. Vs. Uttarakhand Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others … Respondents. Mr. S.P. Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. D.S. Patni, and Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. J.C. Belwal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. N.P. Shah, Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 3. (Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J.) Since the controversy involved in all the aforesaid writ petitions is common, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided together by this judgment. In W.P. No. 611/2008 (M/S), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25-3-2008, passed by Director, Uttarakhand Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in revision No. 110/2006, M/S Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Haldwani (Nainital) (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), whereby the revision was rejected and order dated 14-11-2006 passed by respondent No.2 Secretary and Sabhapati of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Haldwani (annexure No. 2 to the writ petition), was affirmed. In W.P. No. 628/2008 (M/S), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25-3-2008, passed by Director, Uttarakhand Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in revision No. 112/2006, M/S Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Khatima ( Udham Singh Nagar) (annexure-1 to the writ petition), whereby the revision was rejected and order dated 28-11-2006 passed by respondent No.2 Secretary and Sabhapati of Krishi 3 Utpadan Mandi Samiti Khatima (annexure No. 2 to the writ petition), was affirmed. In W.P. No. 629/2008 (M/S), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25-3-2008, passed by Director, Uttarakhand Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in revision No. 113/2007, M/S Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Haridwar Union (Haridwar) (annexure-1 to the writ petition), whereby the revision was rejected and order dated 27-1-2007, passed by respondent No.2 Secretary and Sabhapati of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Haridwar Union (Haridwar), (annexure No. 2 to the writ petition), was affirmed. In W.P. No. 630/2008 (M/S), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25-3-2008, passed by Director, Uttarakhand Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in revision No. 115/2008, M/S Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Jaspur ( Udham Singh Nagar)(annexure-1 to the writ petition), whereby the revision was rejected and order dated 31.12.2007, passed by respondent No.2 Secretary and Sabhapati of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Jaspur, (Udham Singh Nagar), (annexure No. 2 to the writ petition), was affirmed. In W.P. No. 631/2008 (M/S), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 25-3-2008, passed by Director, Uttarakhand Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in revision No. 114/2007, M/S Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Dehradun (Dehradun) (annexure-1 to the writ petition), whereby the revision was rejected and order dated 19-1-2007, passed by respondent No.2 Secretary and Sabhapati of Krishi 4 Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Dehradun, (annexure No.2 to the writ petition), was affirmed. In W.P. No. 1771/2008 (M/S), the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 30-8-2008, passed by Director, Uttarakhand Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar in revision No. 111/2006, M/S Star Paper Mills Ltd. Vs. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Ramnagar ( Nainital) (annexure-1 to the writ petition), whereby the revision was rejected and order dated 27-11-2006, passed by respondent No.2 Secretary and Sabhapati of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Ramnagar (annexure No. 2 to the writ petition), was affirmed. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petitions, are that the petitioner is a public limited company and has a factory at Saharanpur in State of Uttar Pradesh and is engaged in the manufacturing of paper. The raw material required for the manufacture of paper is wood which is purchased by the petitioner from various depots of the U.P. Forest Corporation (hereinafter referred as ‘U.P.F.C.’ ), through various allotment orders. According to the petitioner, these depots are located in the ‘reserved area’ as notified under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. In the reserved area, only such activities can be carried out, which are permitted under the Forest Act. In all these writ petitions the dispute between the petitioner and the Mandi Samitis, relates to the period 1986 to 1998. From perusal of record reveals that on 9-9-1986, notice was issued by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Paliakala (Kheri), directing the petitioner to pay the market-fee on the purchase of wood, made by it from U.P.F.C. The petitioner filed Writ Petition no. 6710/1986 (M/B), challenging the imposition of the demand of market-fee made by the Samiti. The writ 5 petition was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court on 11.12.1998, on the ground that the petitioner had alternative remedy by filing objection before the Mandi Samitis. Against the said order the petitioner preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Apex Court, which was later-on converted in Civil Appeal and disposed by the judgment dated 19-09-2006, directing the petitioner to file objections before the authority concerned. After the decision of Special Leave Petition, the petitioner filed detailed objections before the Secretary of Mandi Samitis and after considering the objections the respondent No.2 Secretary as well as the Sabhapati of different Mandi Samitis, passed the impugned orders, annexed as annexure no.2, with the writ petitions. Vide impugned orders annexure-2, the Secretary and Sabhapati of the Mandi Samitis assessed the mandi-fee and also imposed interest @ 2% per month on the assessed Mandi-fee and directed the petitioner to pay the same within 15 days and if the same is not paid within 15 days, action would be taken under Section 20(1) of Mandi Adhiniyam. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, filed revisions U/S 32 of Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 before the Director, Uttarakhand Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, which were decided by the Director, Mandi Samiti, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar by the impugned orders dated 25.3.2003 (annexure no.1 to the writ petitions) and affirmed the orders of Mandi Samitis. Further aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the present writ petitions have been filed for quashing of the impugned orders passed by the Director as well as the Secretary and Sabhapati of Mandi Samitis. 6 Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents Mandi Samitis. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the petitioner purchases wood from the forest depots of UPFC, situated in different Mandi Samitis in Uttarakhand, therefore, the market- committee of Mandi Samitis are entitled to charge market-fees from the petitioner, for sale or purchase of timber/wood, which is directly purchased from the Forest Corporation through allotment, and the wood is agriculture produce as defined under Section 2(a), read with schedule-H of the Act. It is further stated that the liability to pay the mandi-fee is upon the purchaser. If the selling trader does not realise the mandi-fee from the purchaser, then the purchaser cannot deny his liability to pay the mandi-fee. I have heard Sri S.P. Gupta, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. D.S. Patni and Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J.C. Belwal, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. N.P. Shah, learned Standing Counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No.3. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. S.P. Gupta has vehemently contended that no market-fee is payable by the petitioner on the purchases of wood, in view of Section 17 (iii)(b)(3) of Mandi Adhiniyam, as the petitioner is a trader and purchases the wood from the Corporation, which is also a trader in view of Section 2(y) of the Adhiniyam, therefore, the selling trader U.P.F.C. is liable to pay the mandi-fee. Reliance has been placed upon various decisions of Hon’ble Suprme Court as well as Allahabad High Court, which have been considered by Allahabad High Court while deciding the writ petitions filed before it. It was also contended that same controversy, between the petitioner and different Mandi Samitis, was 7 before the Allahabad High Court pertaining to the question- ‘as to whether the transaction falls within the purview of Section 17 (iii) (b) (3) of the Mandi Adhiniyam, and the mandi-fee can be demanded from the purchaser trader or not’. Learned Senior Advocate further contended that the wood was purchased by the petitioner from the depots of different Mandi Samitis situated in the State of U.P., prior to the appointed day i.e. 9-11-2000 and when the initial notice was given by the Mandi Samiti in the year 1986, all the Mandi Samitis were situated in State of U.P., but when the Hon’ble Apex Court has directed the petitioner to file objections against the notice on the ground of statutory alternative remedy, while dismissing the civil appeal, the State of Uttarakhand had come into existence, therefore, the petitioner filed its objections against the notice of demand before concerning Mandi Samitis situated in State of Uttarakhand. The Mandi Samitis which are situated within State of U.P. decided the objections of the petitioner and affirmed the demand of mandi-fee payable by petitioner and passed assessment orders. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner preferred the revisions before Director, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti. Later-on the revisions were transferred to the Deputy Director, who by order dated 15-9-2008 dismissed the revisions and confirmed the order of the Mandi Samitis. Against the dismissal of revisions, the petitioner preferred C.M.W.P. Nos. 24998, 24991, 24993, 24995 and 24997 of 2008, before the Allahabad High Court. C.M.W.P. No. 24998 of 2008 was made leading case for deciding the controversy. The aforesaid writ petitions have been decided by the Allahabad High Court by the judgment dated 01-12-2008, reported in 2009 (2) AWC 1123, Star Paper Mills Ltd., Saharanpur U.P. Vs. Deputy Director, 8 (Administrative/Marketing), Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Moradabad and others. Against the aforesaid order passed by Allahabad High Court, Special Leave Petition No. CC9482/2009 and other connected petitions were preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the same were also dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 30-10-2009. The aforesaid facts are not disputed to the parties. It is also contended that the objections filed by the petitioner before the Mandi Samitis situated in Uttarakhand were decided later on by impugned orders annexure-2 to the writ petitions and the revisions preferred against those orders have also been rejected vide impugned orders annexure-1 annexed with the writ petitions, against which the present writ petitions have been filed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents could not deny this fact during the course of argument. Therefore, in my view the controversy and issue in the present writ petitions and in the case of Star Paper Mills Ltd., Saharanpur U.P. Vs. Deputy Director, (Administrative/Marketing), Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Moradabad and others (supra), decided by Allahabad High Court, are the same. I am fortified in my view by the judgment rendered by the Allahabad High Court (supra) having similar controversy, and the present writ petitions are to be decided in terms of aforesaid case. Therefore, I hold that the transaction, falls under the purview of Section 17 (iii)(b)(3) of the Mandi Adhiniyam, and the impugned orders levying the demand of mandi-fee from the petitioner, who is a purchasing trader, were wholly illegal and without 9 jurisdiction. The impugned orders cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. All the writ petitions are allowed, in terms of the judgment and order rendered by Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P.No. 24998 of 2008, Star Paper Mills Ltd., Saharanpur U.P. Vs. Deputy Director,(Administrative /Marketing), Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Moradabad and others, reported in 2009 (2) AWC 1123. The impugned orders passed by Director, Uttarakhand Krishi Mandi Samiti as well as the orders passed by Secretary and Sabhapati of different Mandi Samitis, annexed as annexures 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petitions, are hereby quashed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be placed in each file of writ petitions. Dated: September 29, 2010 (B.S. Verma, J.) ISB