WP(C) 4271/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR J CHELAMESWAR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE BK SHARMA These writ petitions are filed praying that certain provisions of the Assam Agri cultural Produce Market (Amendment) Act, 2000 be declared unconstitutional and c onsequently the respondents be restrained from giving effect to the demand notic es issued to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to pay the amounts speci fied in the demand notices towards the market fee payable by the writ petitioner for the year 2006-07. The constitutional validity of the various provisions that are challenge d in these writ petitions fell for the consideration of this court earlier in a batch of writ petitions and this court by judgment dated 12-9-08 disposed of the said batch of writ petitions by partially allowing the writ petitions. Therefor e nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition as regards the questio n of constitutional validity of the various provisions challenged herein. When the matters are taken up for admission it is brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in another writ petition being WP (C) No.8205/05 wherein a similar prayer is made, that is, both the constitutiona l validity of the various provisions of the above mentioned Act and also the dem and notice dated 16-9-05 issued for the year and the consequential communication dated 25-10-05 a learned Judge of this court stayed the enforcement of the dema nd notice dated 16-9-05 which order was extended from time to time and admittedl y affirmed. Dr AK Saraf, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr S Saikia, learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 and Ms B Gogoi, learned State Counsel agree that the matters may be disposed of at this stage in view o f the decision of this court referred to earlier dated 12-9-08. We, therefore, dispose of these writ petitions with the following direct ions :- That the issue regarding the constitutional validity of the various prov isions challenged in these writ petitions will be governed by the judgment of th is court dated 12-9-08 and requires no further order in this regard. Coming to the demand notices, which are the subject matters of these wri t petitions, it appears from the record that the demands pertain to four differe nt years and the demand is approximately to the tune of about Rs.3,47,000,00/-. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in view of the judgme nt of this court dated 12-9-8 the major part of the demand would be unsustainabl e as according to the learned counsel the substantial portion of the transaction of the petitioner is not accessible to the levy under the provisions of t he ab ove mentioned Act, the details of which may not be necessary for the present pur pose. On the other hand Mr S Saikia, learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 , 3 and 4 submitted that though in view of the judgment of this court dated 12-9 -08 some part of the demand perhaps may not be sustainable but essentially it in volves an examination of the various transactions of the petitioner and requires assessment in accordance with law. In the circumstances we are of the opinion that ends of justice will be met in these cases by disposing of these four writ petitions directing that the demand notices, which are the subject matters in these writ petitions, shall not be enforced on condition the petitioner deposits an amount of Rs.75,00,000/- wi thin a period of two weeks from today. On such deposit the respondents shall off er an opportunity to the petitioner to place such materials as the petitioner de ems fit to establish that the demand notices in question either wholly or partia lly unsustainable. The respondents thereafter shall examine the materials placed by the petitioner and make appropriate assessment with reference to each one of the demand notices, which are in dispute, in accordance with law and more parti cularly in the light of the judgment dated 12-9-08. Depending upon the outcome o f such assessment to be made by the respondents in the manner indicated above th e amount directed to be deposited by this court shall be either appropriated by the respondents towards the liability of the petitioner, if any determined, or r efund it to the petitioner, as the case may be. On the other hand if on such ass essment it is found that the petitioner is liable to pay more than the amount de posited pursuant to the order passed today, it goes without saying that the resp ondents will be at liberty to recover the balance amount in accordance with law. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.