In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No.2454 of 2007 Date of decision: 20.3.2008 M/s Gulati Traders and others ......Petitioners Versus Market Committee, Rampura Phul and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.D.S.Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Geeta Sharma, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab, for respondent No.3. **** JUDGMENT SURYA KANT, J. The petitioners, who are working as Commission Agents in New Sabzi Mandi, Rampura Phul, District Bhatinda, seek quashing of the notice (Annexure P-3), whereby the work of recovery of market fee and RDF on behalf of the Market Committee, Rampura Phul sought to be auctioned for a specified period as per the terms and conditions contained in the aforesaid notice. The petitioners' grievance is that the procedure of auction for recovery of market fee and RDF being followed by the respondents CWP No.2454 of 2007 -2- vide impugned notice is contrary to the dictum contained in a Division Bench judgment of this Court in CWP No.10470 of 2005 titled as Rajinder Kumar Gumber and others v. Market Committee, Nakokar and others decided on October 27, 2006. In Rajinder Kumar Gumber's case (Supra), this Court held as follows:- “In view of the above, we are of the view that provisions of Rule 29-A of the Rules and Bye-law 12-B are outside the purview of the authority to frame rules and bye-laws. Function of collection of market fee being integral to the levy and assessment, has to be exercised by Market Committee. If at all there can be outsourcing, it has to be only of collection of fee already assessed and declared in a written order of a Market Committee. Bye- law 12-B of the Bye-laws has to be declared ultra vires to the provisions of the Act as on a plain reading thereof, it is evident that the same has been given overriding effect even above the parent statute and the Rules, under which the bye-laws have been framed, which is against the settled principles of law.” (emphasis applied) Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have filed their reply. In para 10 thereof, they have come up with a specific stand that “the contractor is collecting market fee and RDF under the rules and the contractor is not assessing market fee and RDF.” In other words the respondents do not dispute that the market fee and RDF can be assessed only by CWP No.2454 of 2007 -3- the competent authority prescribed under the Act and not by a contractor, though recovery of such assessed market fee and RDF can be outsourced as permitted by this Court in Rajinder Kumar Gumber's case (Supra). In view of the above stand taken by the respondents, we dispose of this writ petition, however, by reiterating that the judgment rendered by this Court in Rajinder Kumar Gumber's case , referred to above, shall be strictly followed by the respondents. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE (SABINA) March 20, 2008 JUDGE anita