RSA No. 1472 of 2005(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No. 1472 of 2005 (O&M) and Cross-objections No. 22-C of 2005 Date of Decision: July 31, 2009 Market Committee and another ..... Appellants Versus M/s Paras Rice Mill ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the respondent-cross-objector. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the lower Appellate Court reversing that of the trial court decreeing the suit of the respondent whereby the demand of the appellants for market fee has been set aside on the ground that no notice was given prior to the issuance of the demand letter. Respondent on the other hand has filed cross-objections wherein it has protested against the liberty which was granted by the lower Appellate Court to the appellants to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law after giving notice. The following questions have been proposed in the appeal:- i) Whether in view of proviso to Section 23 of the Punjab Agriculture Produce Marketing Act, 1961, the Appellant is empowered to levy fee ore than once on the same agricultural RSA No. 1472 of 2005(O&M) 2 produce if it is brought and sold repeatedly. ii) Whether by virtue of Rule 31 read with Section 33 A of the Punjab Agriculture Produce Marketing Act, 1961 the appellant is entitled to impose market fee on the agriculture produce? iii) Whether by virtue of Rule 31 read with Section 33 A of the Punjab Agriculture Produce Marketing Act, 1961, the appellant is required to give any notice before levying market fee on the agriculture produce to the respondents? iv) Whether the evidence on the record has been misread and misinterpreted and the well settled legal principles have not been adhered to by the learned Courts below? v) Whether all the submissions made on behalf of the present appellant have not been considered by the learned lower Courts? In cross-objections the following questions have been proposed:- a) Whether the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2004 passed by learned Addl. District Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Kurukshetra to the extent whereby he has held the appellants to be entitled to make recovery of market fee from the respondent-objector in accordance with law and after following the due procedure of law is manifestly and inherently illegal, unjust, arbitrary and the same is against the factual position involved in the instant case as well as the earlier view contained in the judgment dated 15.12.1992 passed by the then Addl. Senior Sub Judge, Kurukshetra? b) Whether in view of Ex.DA and the evidence of Chattar Pal, E.O.-cum-Secretary who appeared as DW1 on behalf of the appellants, any demand of market fee is made out against the respondent-objector in view of the provisions of Rule 29 of 1962 Rules? c) Whether manifest and grave injustice has been occasioned to the respondent-objector? RSA No. 1472 of 2005(O&M) 3 As regards the questions of law proposed by the appellants, suffice it to say that once it was found that no notice was issued to the respondent before the demand, no action could have been taken by the appellants. The questions thus are peripheral as compared to this seminal issue. Consequently I hold that the same do not arise and dismiss this appeal. As regards the cross-objections it would be seen that all the questions are pure questions of fact. I have not been persuaded by the learned counsel for the cross-objector to hold that the findings recorded by the learned lower Appellate Court are either based on no evidence or are based on such misreading of evidence so as to render the same perverse. Consequently holding the questions proposed in the cross- objections against the respondent, cross-objections are also dismissed. A perusal of the order of the trial Court reveals that interim relief was not granted to the respondent and, therefore, there is great likelihood that the demanded amount has been recovered. In case this is so the appellants are directed to conclude the fresh proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order subject to the respondent cooperating with the same. Since the main case has been decided, all the pending Civil Misc. Applications are disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 31, 2009 sunita