IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.15096 of 2003 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.5.2010 Diwan Chand and others -----Petitioners Vs. The Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board, Chandigarh and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:- Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate for the petitioners. Advocate for the appellant. --- Adarsh Kumar Goel,J. 1. Order dated 15.1.2010 dismissing the writ petition in default is recalled. Heard on merits. 2. This petition has been filed for a direction not to charge market fee or Rural Development Fee (RDF) on Kinnu and Malta (gray fruits). 3. Case of the petitioners (31 in number) is that they are lessees of fruit orchards and are covered by the definition of ‘growers/producers’ under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act’). On the basis of letter dated 9.9.2003, Annexure P.1, the Market Committee gave a direction to the transporters not to transport the gray fruits which may result in evasion of market fee. On account of the said letter, a CWP No.15096 of 2003 (O&M) sum of Rs.200/- was paid towards the rural development fee on each vehicle. 4. Contention raised in the writ petition is that the levy was against the provisions of the Act in as much as no sale or purchase had taken place in the notified market area in absence of which even levy was not attracted. It is further contented that the levy has to be ad valorem on the value of the produce and could not be at the rate of Rs.200/- per canter/truck. 5. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, contention raised in the petition is disputed and it is stated that sale and purchase is taking place in the market area and the fruits in question were covered by Sr.No.80 of the Schedule to the Act. It has been further stated that the market fee/RDF was being charged as per provisions of the Act and the rules. Apart from the above stand taken on merits, preliminary objection of availability of alternative remedy has also been raised. 6. On 11.11.2003, writ petition was admitted. However, no stay was granted. It was directed that if the writ petition succeeds, the respondents shall refund the fee collected with interest at the rate of 8%. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners says that though for some time, market fee and rural development fund were charged, thereafter, it was stopped and as at present, no levy is being imposed. He is not aware of the exact amount paid. 2 CWP No.15096 of 2003 (O&M) 8. In view of the fact that as at present, no levy is being imposed, we are of the view that no further direction is called for at this stage. Disputed question whether sale and purchase took place and whether amount of Rs.200/- allegedly changed on each vehicle represented fee due on value of the produce cannot be settled in summary jurisdiction. We, therefore, leave it open to the petitioners to raise all contentions before concerned authority and if this course is adopted, the said authority may pass a speaking order after hearing the petitioners. If any refund is found to be due, the said authority will be free to pass appropriate order in that regard. 9. The petition is disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge May 6, 2010 (Alok Singh) ‘gs’ Judge 3