Case: Raunaq Ram Tara Chand &amp; Ors. Etc Vs. The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors

2. The appellants are shop-keepers of Gur Mandi, Patiala, and are, licensees under Section 30 ofthe Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (briefly the Act) and are also pacca arhtiyas. It is not in dispute that they sell gur and sakhar within the market area notified under the Act. It is also admitted that they have licences under Section 10 of the Act in FormB as kacha arhtiya or commission agent. Since they were found to be selling gur and sakhar in their own shops within the notified market area without submitting accounts and without payment of fees they were asked to show cause by the Market Committee why legal action should not be taken against them for violation of Rules 29 (3) and 31 (1) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962 (briefly the Rules) and for violation of condition No. 1 of the licence which is to the effect that the licensee shall comply with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-laws framed thereunder and instructions issued from time to time.3. The appellants disclaimed liability to pay fee under the Act on various grounds. The Administrator of the Market Committee after some correspondence levied on one of the appellants, M/s. Prem Chand Ram Lal, appellants in Civil Appeal No, 120 of 1972, Rs. 5,014 as market fee on the basis of, best judgment assessment and imposed equal amount of penalty and a demand notice was issued for payment. M/s. Prem Chand Ram Lal filed a writ application before the High Court for quashing the demand notice. The High Court allowed the petition quashing the order of assessment as arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. The High Court, however, rejected the other contentions of the said petitioner questioning the validity of the fee levied. M/s. Prem Chand Ram Lal filed a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge rejecting their other substantial points.4. The appellants in Civil Appeal No. 299 of 1972 had also filed a writ application under Articles 226 and 227 Of the Constitution in the High. Court Questioning the action taken against them as well as the levy under the Act. By a common judgment of March 25, 1970, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal of M/s. Prem Chand Ram Lal as also the writ application of the appellants and granted certificates to appeal to this Court.

Court's reasoning:
10. As we read the above sub-section it is clear that no person shall, unless exempted by rules, inter alia purchase, sell, store or process the specified agricultural produce except under a licence. It is not the case of the appellants that they belong to the exemptedSection 23 and Rule 29 together it is not possible to escape from the conclusion that the Act authorises levy of fee on agricultural produce bought or sold in the notified market area by licensees only. The appellants have licence only in respect of the business of kacha arhtiya and commission agent. While we express no opinion on the point whether the absence of reference to buying and selling of agricultural produce in Form A and Form B disables the Committee to issue licences for that purpose, we are of opinion that the present appeals can be disposed of on the sole ground that the appellants have not as a matter of fact been issued such licences and no fees can, therefore be levied on them in respect of purchases and sales of agricultural produce by them. The appellants are, therefore, not liable to payment of fee under the Act as. 2 (a) defines agricultural produce to mean "all produce whether processed or not, of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry or forest as specified in the Schedule to this Act" which mentions 85 items of commodities. These are statutorily agricultural produce under Section 2 (a). It is not possible to entertain the argument that the Court will undertake a judicial scrutiny of these items in order to come to a conclusion whether these are agricultural produce or not. In view of the definition in Section 2 (a) such an enquiry is out of place. In this context we may note that under Section 38 the State Government may by notification add to the schedule any other item of agricultural produce or amend or omit any such specified item. It is because of this power to add to the schedule items of agricultural produce that the first part of the definition under Section 2 (a) gives guidance as to what agricultural produce means. The submissions are, therefore, devoid of substance.