Case: I T C Ltd Vs. Person Incharge, Agrl Mkt.Commtt.

1.The controversy raised in all these appeals in similar and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. We will state the facts of Civil Appeal No. 13217 of 1997. The appellant is a public limited company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Calcutta. It is engaged in the business of processing and exporting of marine products and for that purpose it has established a branch office at Kakinada in the State of Andhra Pradesh, from where it carries on the business activities in respect of prawns. The appellant purchases dead prawns from various locations like Bhimili, Vizag, Vakapadu, Bhimavaram, Kakinada, Narsapur, Kodur, Nagayalanka, Machilipatnam, Repalla, Amalapuram in the State of Andhra Pradesh and after getting them processed, exports the same to various countries. The appellant had obtained licenses from the respondents under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for carrying on its business activity in the aforesaid places. A demand notice dated 26th September, 1995 was served upon the appellant demanding payment of market fee wherein it was mentioned that if the market fee was not paid, interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum shall be charged, apart from prosecution being launched for violation of Sections 12(1) and 12(a) and (3) of the Act, which entails punishment upto one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The Appellant challenged the notice demanding market fee by filing writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court which dismissed the same by the order dated 18.2.1997 relying upon an earlier detailed judgment dated 17.4.1996 of a Division Bench of the same Court given in a batch of writ petitions and writ appeals.

Reasoning:
Therefore, the authority cited by the learned counsel does not support his contention in any manner.In our opinion, the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions has no application here. Firstly, in Sri Lashmi Dry Fish Traders (supra), the challenge was to the notification by which dry fish was included in the Schedule and did not relate to prawns with or without life. Secondly, the High Court in the present case has considered this contention and has expressly rejected it holding in favour of State Government and it is the appellant which is coming up in appeal to this Court. In State of Maharashtra vs. Digambar (1995(4) SCC 683, a three Judge Bench had expressly repelled such a contention and had held that non filing of an appeal is one matter would not act as a bar against the State in filing appeal in another matter where similar point may be involved.the contention raised has absolutely no substance.