IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.04.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.NOs.20420 and 20421 of 2010 and M.P.Nos.1 and 1 of 2010 M/s.V.S.Nachimuthu Mudaliar Sons, Sri Rathinagirieswarar Rice Mill, rep by its Sole Proprietor, Mr.V.N.Arushamy, 44/46,KArur Road, Kolinjivadi Post, Dharapuram Thirupur District-638 673. .. Petitioner in W.P.No.20420 of 2010 M/s.Sri Krishna Modern Rice Mill, rep by its Sole Proprietor, Mr.K.Krishnasamy, 522/382,Dindigul Road, Karuvelampallam, Achiyur Post, Dharapuram, Thirupur District. .. Petitioner in W.P.No.20421 of 2010 Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary to Government, Agricultural Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Tamil Nadu State Agricultural Marketing Board, rep by its Commissioner, Agricultural Department Marketing, Guindy, Chennai-32. 3.Erode Agricultural Marketing Committee, rep by its Secretary, Erode. 4.The Superintendent, Agricultural Marketing Committee, Dharapuram, Thirupur District. .. Respondents in both petitions https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Both writ petitions are preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus to forbear the respondents from enforcing the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1987 and the Rules made thereunder or Byelaws by any Marketing Committee in respect of purchase of any notified agricultural produce effected outside the notified market area and sold inside or outside issued in the Government Gazette in G.O.Ms.No.3 and 4 dated 03.01.2003 issued by the first respondent, the market area. For Petitioners : .Ms.R.T.Shyamala For Respondents : Ms.C.Devi, GA for R-1 Mr.R.Murali, GA for R-3 COMMON ORDER Both writ petitions were filed by two different rice mill Proprietors having their mills at Kolinjivadi and Karuvellampallam respectively in Dharapuram Taluk, Thiruppur District. The prayer made by the petitioners was for a direction to forbear the respondents from enforcing the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act, 1987 and the rules as well as bylaws made by any marketing committee in respect of purchase of any notified agricultural produce effected outside the notified market area and sold inside or outside area issued by the Government vide Government Gazette in G.O.Ms.Nos.3 and 4, dated 03.01.2003 and to pass such other order as may deem it fit. 2.When the matter came up on 27.10.2010, this Court directed private notice to be served on the respondents. On such notice, the respondents have entered appearance. 3.The contention of the petitioners was that they are the owners of the rice mills. They are doing trading in Paddy, Bengal gram, Black gram, Green Gram and Coconut Kopparai. They are also dealing with various commodities including oil seeds which are purchased from both inside and outside the notified area either from Farmers or traders and sold to other traders inside and outside notified area as raw materials or after industrial processing. In such matters of imported goods from outside the notified market area, they do not enjoy any benefit or facility or service from the concerned markets of marketing committee within whose territorial jurisdiction their places of business were located. Nevertheless the local markets of various marketing committees levy market fee for dealing with such imported goods in the guise of exercise of power under Section 24(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987. Under Section 8 of the Act, it is stipulated that no person shall https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ purchase or sell any notified agricultural produce in a notified market area outside the market in that area and that the trading of notified produce is governed by the terms of the licence. Section 2 (12) defines the term "notified agricultural produce" means any agricultural produce specified in the notification under Section 3. The notified area is defined under Section 2(13), which means any area notified under Section 4 as altered by any notification in terms of Section 9(1). 4.According to the petitioners, Section 24 of the Act has to be read with Section 8. Even if any purchase is made with the farmers directly within the notified area of the marketing committee, then the marketing committee has no power to levy or collect Cess from the traders. In the absence of any saving clause preserving the earlier action under the old Act, there is no jurisdiction for the respondents to levy Cess. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioners placed heavy reliance upon unreported decisions of this Court to contend that in terms of Section 6(2), if no notification is issued notifying the market area, then persons who had neither purchased nor sold within the notified area and brought the produce from outside, can make appropriate representations before the Committee and that the Committee should decide the claim in accordance with law. However, the issue raised herein is no longer res integra. The constitutionality of the Act itself has been upheld by the division bench of this Court in Raja Palyam Paruthi Panchu Sangam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others reported in AIR 1996 MADRAS 29. 6.Subsequently, the very same division bench while rejecting the similar contentions in W.P.Nos.6812 and 6813 of 1991, dated 29.06.1994 in N.Rajan, Proprietor, Lakshmi Trading Company Vs. The Secretary, Tiruchirappalli Marketing Committee, Tiruchirappalli and another held in paragraph 2 as follows: "2.It is not disputed that the petitioners import the notified agricultural produce into the notified market area from outside the State for the purpose of sale. When the sale of such agricultural produce takes place in the notified area of the market, such sale becomes subject to levy of market fee. Therefore, we see no ground to grant the relief...." 7.The said decision came to be followed by the subsequent division bench of this Court in W.A.No.1600 of 2002, dated 12.07.2010 in Thirupathur Paddy and Rice Merchants Association, Thirupathur Vs. Director of Agricultural Marketing, Tiruchi and another and similar contentions were rejected. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8.In the light of the above, both writ petitions must fail. Accordingly, both writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions stand closed. Sd/- Asst. Registrar /True copy/ Sub. Asst. Registrar vvk To 1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Agricultural Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2.The Commissioner, The Tamil Nadu State Agricultural Marketing Board, Agricultural Department Marketing, Guindy, Chennai-32. 3.The Secretary, Erode Agricultural Marketing Committee, Erode. 4.The Superintendent, Agricultural Marketing Committee, Dharapuram, Thirupur District. + 2 ccs to M/s. R.T. Shyamala SR.28314 W.P.NOs.20420 and 20421 of 2010 UG(CO) Eu 3.5.11 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/