CIVIL REVISION NO.1332 OF 1986 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 23 , 2008 Market Committee, Ludhiana .....Petitioner VERSUS M/s Ganda Ram Dharam Pal, Mill Owner and Commission Agent, Ludhiana ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. S. P. Garg, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. M/s Ganda Ram Dharam Pal filed this suit against the Market Committee, Ludhiana, for recovery of sum of Rs.7740-80P, out of which Rs.5691-76P was the principal amount and Rs.2049.04P was the interest @ 12% per annum. The recovery is on account of excess payment of market fee allowed to have been paid by the plaintiff-respondent under the Agriculture Produce Market Act, CIVIL REVISION NO.1332 OF 1986 :{ 2 }: 1961 (for short, “the Act”). A licence is issued by the Market Committee for running a business in terms of Section 23 of the Act. On sale and purchase of the agriculture produce in the market area, a fee @ Rs.1.50P over transaction worth Rs.100/- was payable. The respondent-plaintiff firm was carrying on business of sale/purchase of the agriculture produce at Ludhiana, which was under the jurisdiction of defendant-Market Committee. The respondent-plaintiff firm was required to pay market fee being a licensee. By an ordinance issued in the year 1974, the market fee was raised from Rs.1.50P to Rs.2.25P per Rs.100/- of the value of the agriculture produce. Subsequently, this ordinance was replaced by Punjab Agriculture Produce Market (Amendment) Act No.13 of 1974. The enhanced rate of market fee was enforced with effect from 13.4.1974. Somewhat similar amendments were introduced by the State of Haryana in the Act applicable to the State, providing Rs.2/- as market fee per Rs.100/-. The action of the Government in enhancing the market fee was challenged before this Court in the case of M/s Hanuman Dall and General Mills, Hissar Vs. The State of Haryana and others, AIR 1976 Punjab and Haryana 1. This Court vide its judgment dated 8.11.1974 held that enhanced market fee is not justified. The respondent-plaintiff accordingly filed a suit praying that market fee payable for a period from 3.5.1974 to 14.11.1974 was only Rs.11,283-73P whereas the petitioner-Market Committee has realised a sum of Rs.5691-76P in excess. The refund of this excess money was accordingly sought and for the said purpose, suit was filed. CIVIL REVISION NO.1332 OF 1986 :{ 3 }: The petitioner-Market Committee raised a preliminary objection in regard to the locus of the respondent firm to file the suit. It is pointed out that the plaintiff-firm did not pay any amount from his own funds, being a Commission Agent and only used to get commission and market fee realised from the other persons. The fee, which was collected, accordingly was paid to the Market Committee. The fee, even if paid in excess, did not belong to the respondent- plaintiff firm. The person from whom this fee had been realised had also not been impleaded as a party and on this basis, the prayer made in the suit was contested. Another objection with regard to the suit being barred was also raised. The right of the respondent-plaintiff firm to receive interest was also contested. The Trial Court framed as many as 12 issues and ultimately decreed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.5691-76P. Another amount of Rs.2049-04P was also allowed as interest @ 12% per annum. The petitioner Committee filed an appeal against the said judgment, which, however, was got dismissed by the counsel representing the Committee on 15.3.1985 and the relevant order in this regard is as under:- “The matter has been decided by the Hon'ble High Court. I do not want to pursue the appeal. The same may be dismissed as withdrawn.” Subsequently, an application Under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC for review of the order/judgment dated 15.3.1985 was filed. The Appellate Court, however, dismissed this application for review on the ground that the same would not fall within the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC inasmuch as there is no CIVIL REVISION NO.1332 OF 1986 :{ 4 }: mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The ground raised in the application was that counsel for the petitioner-Market Committee had made the statement without proper instructions and this was enough to review the impugned order. This order passed by the Appellate Court was challenged through the present revision petition. This revision petition was admitted in the year 1986 and has now come up for hearing. Notice was issued to the parties concerned. The petitioner-Committee is represented by Mr.S.P.Garg, Advocate. However, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent- firm. As per the report given by the Registry, notice issued to the respondent-firm is received back with the report that the firm is closed and, thus, unserved. Since the revision pertains to the year 1986, there is no requirement of pending decision in the case any further. Learned counsel representing the petitioner, after making reference to the facts as afore-mentioned, would straightway come to the legal submission to urge that the matter has now been finally decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kewal Krishan Puri and another Vs. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1008. Apart from other challenges raised in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issue relating to the amount collected as a fee by the Market Committee was also gone into. While deciding the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court made reference to the case of M/s Hanuman Dall and General Mills, Hissar (supra). While deciding this case, the Hon'ble Supreme CIVIL REVISION NO.1332 OF 1986 :{ 5 }: Court noticed the fact that several writ petitions were filed in the High Court by the dealers of various Market Committees of Haryana where the challenge was made to the rate of market fee raised from Rs.2/- to Rs.3/-. It is noticed that the High Court rejected all these petitions by judgment dated 30.8.1978, which was also a subject matter of Civil Appeal No.1709 of 1978. It is also noticed that challenge by the dealers of Moga Market Committee through Civil Writ Petition No.2015 of 1978 filed in the High Court also failed as per the judgment of the High Court delivered on 18.5.1978. The purpose enumerated in the Full Bench decision and noticed by the Supreme Court for the purpose of justifying the increase in the rate of fee from Rs.2/- to Rs.3/- per hundred rupees were found to be stereo-type ones including Rural Integrated Development Scheme, night-shelter, link roads and bridges. Noticing that if the law does not permit carrying on of the sentiment too far for achieving of all the laudable objects under the Act, then primarily it becomes the duty of the Court to allow the law to have an upper hand over the sentiment and not vice-versa. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that hundred dealers of various market Committees in the State of Punjab have challenged the increase of market fee from Rs.2/- to Rs.3/-. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, not only the increase of rate was challenged but the previous increase had also been challenged. The Hon'ble Supreme Court did not feel persuaded to interfere with the charging of market fee at the rate of Rs.2/- per hundred by various Market Committees in the States of of Punjab and Haryana. The increase of market rate from Rs.2/- to Rs.3/- is held not justified CIVIL REVISION NO.1332 OF 1986 :{ 6 }: in law. It is, thus, seen that the view taken by this Court in the case of M/s Hanuman Dall and General Mills, Hissar (supra), that any increase in the market fee beyond Rs.2/- per hundred was held unjustified even by the Apex Court. It is on the basis of this judgment that the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that recovery, which was sought to be effected by the respondent from the petitioner-Market Committee can not be up-held. The whole case set up by the respondent for seeking recovery is that the fee, which was raised from Rs.1.50P to Rs.2.25P per hundred can not be justified. In view of the order passed by this court, the counsel appears to have withdrawn the appeal. The action taken to withdraw from this position, however, was not accepted by the lower Appellate Court. The contention of the petitioner is that now the enhancement of the fee upto Rs.2/- has been held justified and hence, the respondent would not be entitled to seek any recovery. Even otherwise, the counsel would point out that the respondent would not be in any competent position to seek recovery of the amount as he has paid the amount to the Market Committee what has been charged from the buyers. If this amount is required to be paid back, the buyers would be entitled to recover the same and not the respondent-Company. No buyer has come forward to claim the amount presently claimed. Nobody has come to represent the respondent-Company to justify the recovery ordered against the Market Committee. In view of this, the impugned order can not be sustained CIVIL REVISION NO.1332 OF 1986 :{ 7 }: and the same is hereby set-aside. The present revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. May 23 ,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE