CWP No. 13851 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 13851 of 1992 Date of decision October 17, 2011 M/s Sada Ram Som Nath Rice Millers ....... Petitioner Versus Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. C. B. Goel Advocate and Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. **** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?Yes K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The only point that arises for consideration is the tenability of the order passed by the Chief Administrator. This order was a confirmation of an earlier order passed by the Executive Officer of Market Committee on 12.9.1991 (Annexure P-6) under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 requiring the petitioner to pay the market fee and penalty for having submitted form LL beyond a period of 20 days from the date when it was brought to the notified area. The petitioner claimed that the grains purchased from Food Corporation of India had CWP No. 13851 of 1992 2 already borne the market fee and the same was paid by Food Corporation of India from which the petitioner had purchased. 2. The impugned order claimed market fee and penalty on the ground that in terms of the relevant rules, the Form LL was to be submitted within 20 days of the bringing of the produce within the notified market area. While dealing with this rule 30 sub rule (5) proviso, this Court has held in Varsha Spinning Mills Limted Vs. State of Haryana PLR 1995-1 600 that the stipulation of 20 days period is merely directory and cannot found a justification for levying the penalty and also claiming the market fee. Again similar view has been taken in Anand Convass Mills Pvt Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others 1993 PLJ 434. This judgment provides for imposition of penalty but lays down specifically that market fee cannot be collected again. 3. The counsel appearing for the respondent refers to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others Vs. Ganesh Rice and General Mills and another JT 1998 (8) SC 383 in support of his plea to the contrary. The Supreme Court, although, was examining the effect of submission of Form LL beyond the prescribed period of 20 years, was dealing with a factually different situation. In that case, apart from a mere assertion that market fee had already been paid, no proof was adduced. In the instant case, the certificate of payment of market fee by FCI was actually submitted along with Form LL. Further, it was not as if the Supreme Court was foreclosing the option to the purchaser to adduce proof of payment of market fee. The Supreme Court was actually remanding the case, giving the liberty to file the declaration and certificate of payment to the market committee. 4. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the petitioner will be liable to pay only `500/- which is the maximum penalty permissible under Rule 39. If the amount of market fee CWP No. 13851 of 1992 3 had been laready collected, the petitioner is entitled to refund the same with interest at the rate of 6% per annum, after adjusting the penalty levied as above. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 17, 2011 archana