IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 11837/2009 Shri Shakun Oils Ltd Vs The State of Rajasthan & ors 2. SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6397/2005 M/s Modern Woollens Vs State of Rajasthan & anr 3. SB Civil Writ Petition No.8089/2005 Ajmer Food Products Pvt Ltd Vs State of Rajasthan & anr 4. SB Civil Writ Petition No.4191/2006 The Wool Merchants Assn.Vs The State of Raj. & ors 5. SB Civil Writ Petition No.10430/2007 M/s Vijay Solvex Ltd Vs The State of Rajasthan & ors 6. SB Civil Writ Petition No.2638/2008 Pernod Ricard India (P) Ltd vs State of Rajasthan & ors 7. SB Civil Writ Petition No.11407/2009 Shri Shakuntala Industries Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 8. SB Civil Writ Petition No.9939/2009 M/s Goyal Industries Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 9. SB Civil Writ Petition No.12427/2009 SVM Oil Industries Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 15.1.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Bipin Gupta Mr Sunil Nath Mr Vinod Goyal Mr A Kasliwal Mr Manish Sharma Mr Bharat Saini - for the petitioners Mr Inderjeet Singh – for respondents Mr Satya Narain Kumawat for Mr SN Kumawat, AAG BY THE COURT: This bunch of writ petitions raises similar question of law thus have been heard and decided by this common judgment. It is stated by learned counsel for the respondents that bunch of writ petition was decided by the coordinate Bench in the writ petition led by SB Civil Writ Petition No. 9942/2009 M/s Vikas Oil Products Vs State & ors, decided on 17.12.2009 and in view of decision therein it is prayed that these writ petitions may also be decided. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that issue involved in the bunch of writ petitions led by writ petition No.9942/2009 was slightly different than these matters and may not be decided in the light of the judgment passed in the aforesaid bunch of writ petition. During the course of arguments, it is stated that issue involved in these matters is as to whether Mandi fee is leviable on the petitioners as no sale and purchase of agricultural produce took place within the Mandi area and, secondly, as to whether section 17 of the Rajasthan Agiculture Produce Market Act, 1961attracts on these matters or not. The validity of the Notification has also been challenged. Referring to rule 58(4), learned counsel for the petitioners submit that at present they are not pressing the writ petition in regard to the challenge however they may be given liberty to file a writ petition as when when necessity arises. Looking to the facts aforesaid, I am of the view that these writ petitions are also covered by the judgment in the bunch of writ petition led by Writ Petition No. 9942/2009. Thus the order passed above rather in the writ petition No. 5230/2006 M/s Shivam Agro Food Pvt Ltd Udaipur Vs State & ors dated 5.2.2009 by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur, these writ petitions are also decided. The only exception in the order would be that in all these writ petitions there exist interim order and the same is continued. Thus, I am not inclined to vacate the interim order till the appeals are decided by the Director, Agriculture. Accordingly, same order is passed in these writ petitions also, as has been passed in Writ Petition No. 5230/2006. The only alteration is regarding the interim order. “After attempting to argue the matter for some more time, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in this batch of similar writ petitions submit that in view of the objections urged on behalf of the respondents about the matter involving disputed questions of fact and about availability of alternative remedy per Section 34(2)(b) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 ('the Act of 1961'), the petitioners shall stand advised not to proceed with these writ petitions any further; and seek permission to withdraw with liberty for the petitioners to take resort to the remedy under Section 34(2)(b) of the Act of 1961 and further liberty to take resort to appropriate remedies, in case any grievance remains after the decision of the matter under Section 34(2)(b) of the Act of 1961. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection if the entire matter is kept open and rights of the parties to take resort to appropriate remedies in accordance with law are kept intact. These writ petitions were filed in the wake of the Notification dated 27.04.2005 whereby Sub-rule (4) of the Rule 58 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963 ('the Rules of 1963') was deleted; and the petitioners essentially averred that they had been purchasing agricultural produces from outside the State of Rajasthan and were bringing about a different product by way of processing and, therefore, according to the petitioners, no market fees could have been levied upon them under Section 17 of the Act of 1961. The submissions of the respondents have been that the petitioners failed to furnish the requisite information as required by the Rules of 1963 and Bye-laws framed thereunder and, therefore, some of the petitioners were issued notices; and that the contentions urged in these petitions pertain to the disputed questions of fact about the source of purchase of the petitioners, about the effect of processing done by them, and about the sale made thereafter, and if at all the petitioners had any grievance as to whether any money is due to the concerned market committee or not, the same could have been referred under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the Act of 1961; and else, the validity of the Notification dated 27.04.2005 has already been upheld by this Court in CWP NO. 620/2008 (M/s. Saurabh Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State & Ors.) on 24.01.2008. Having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the case and the stand of the respective parties, this Court finds it appropriate and in the interest of justice that the petitioners be permitted to withdraw with liberty for them to make, within thirty days, proper representation/s to the Director concerned under section 34 (2) (b) of the Act of 1961 and with liberty to the parties to take resort to appropriate remedies in accordance with law, if any grievance remains after the decision by the Director on such representation/s. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is considered appropriate, and hence observed, that it shall be expected of the Director concerned to deal with the matter expeditiously and to take final decision as early as possible preferably within sixty days from the date of making representation/s. Needless to say that it shall be expected of the Director to objectively examine the matter on the representation/s, if made within thirty days from today, after making appropriate enquiry and affording adequate opportunity of hearing to the applicants.” During pendency of the representation(s)/appeal(s) before the Director concerned, the respondents will not effect the recovery of the amount so demanded towards Mandi fee. The petitions are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty for the parties as aforesaid. No costs. The parties would be at liberty to produce and call for the original Gazette Notification. (MN BHANDARI), J. bnsharma