Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 509 (MP)

Balkishan v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti

2003-04-04

A.K.GOHIL

body2003
JUDGMENT This order shall also govern the disposal of connected W.P. No. 1557/02 arising out of the same order. In both these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 22.4.2002 (Annexure P-5) passed by Additional Director, M.P. Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board, Bhopal in statutory appeal. Brief facts of the case are that admittedly the petitioners firm are carrying the business of manufacturing of edible oil, from oil seed which is being purchased by them partly from Mandi area Indore and partly from other Mandis within the State of M.P. and outside the State, within the market area of Krishi Upaj Mandi, Indore. By various demand notices, the respondent No.2 directed the petitioners to deposit Mandi fee and Nirashrit Shulk payable on the edible oil purchased during the period from 1987 to 1990. The case of the petitioners is that no Mandi fee could be demanded by the Mandi Samiti as they have already paid the Mandi fee on the oil seed from which the oil is being produced. In reply to the demand notice, the petitioners have claimed that no Mandi fee is payable on the oil as they have already paid Mandi fees on oil seed. The further allegation of the petitioners is that without reassessment, the Mandi Committee vide letter dated 8.1.1996 referred the matter and issued RRC to the Nayab Tehsildar for recovery. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid recovery notice before the Director, Mandi in appeal and the Additional Director, Mandi by a common order dated 22.4.2002, disposed of the appeals directing the Mandi Committee to reassess and determine the Mandi fee afresh. In the order impugned, the Additional Commissioner has further directed that the petitioners shall deposit 60 percent of the Mandi fee with interest within a period of 45 days with a further direction that on assessment if it is found to be excess, the excess amount so deposited by the petitioners would be refunded, against which the petitioners have collectively filed these petitions. I have heard Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned senior advocate for the petitioner, Shri Mandhanya, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned senior advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. I have heard Shri G.M. Chaphekar, learned senior advocate for the petitioner, Shri Mandhanya, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri S.C. Bagadiya, learned senior advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. The submission of Shri Chaphekar, senior counsel for the petitioners was that so far as the order impugned is concerned, they have no grievance against the direction regarding reassessment by the Mandi Samiti but they are only aggrieved by the latter part of the order directing the petitioners to deposit 60 percent of the amount payable under demand notice with -interest within 45 days. His further submission was that in a similar case decided by this Court on 9.3.2001 in W.P. No. 1226/96 (M/s Sanjay Dal and Besan Mill, Indore v. Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Indore and others), the Mandi Samiti had been directed to issue individual notice to every petitioner specifying therein the period to enable the petitioner to produce their record (account book and other relevant documents) as per section 20(1) and (2) of the Act and thereafter to pass a reasoned assessment order in each case. His further submission was that in the aforesaid case this Court had not given any direction about the deposit of amount payable under demand notice in advance. In reply, the counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. I have perused the order impugned as well as the order passed in W.P. No. 1226/96. In that petition also in the order impugned the petitioners were directed to deposit 60 percent of the amount due and payable under demand notice and that was also the subject matter for consideration before the Judge. The learned Judge considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners and held that the appellate authority was right in its discretion to stay the impugned demand to the extent of remaining 40 percent till the reassessment is not done. The counsel for the petitioners could not convince me that in a similar case when this Court has already taken a view on the factual aspect of the matter and decline the arguments and refused to set aside the order of depositing 60% of the amount of demand notice then it would not be proper for this Court to arrive at a different view than the one taken earlier by the Court. More so before the appellate Court below, the parties preferred to argue that their case be decided and be remanded to the Mandi Samiti for reassessment on the basis of earlier decision as per W.P. 1226/96 then how they can ask for more relief from this Court in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which they had not asked from the appellate Court. In fact appellate Court has decided the appeal on the same lines as they prayed for it. I think the Additional Director, Mandi has not committed any illegality in passing such an order directing to deposit 60 percent of the amount due and payable as per demand notice by the petitioners to the Mandi Committee with interest because this Court has already confirmed the earlier order in W.P. No. 1226/96 (M/s. Sanjay Dall and Besan Mill) in which direction for 60% was also given. The Additional Director has also already saved the interests of the petitioners by adding a condition that if on assessment it is found that the Mandi fee is assessed less, the excess amount so deposited by the petitioners would be refunded. The Additional Director, Mandi has also given a direction to the Mandi Samiti to complete the reassessment process within a period of 60 days. Since the Additional Director, Mandi has already taken a considered view of the matter, passed reasoned orders and accepted the prayer of petitioners for reassessment of the Mandi fee due and payable by them, hardly any scope for interference is available in these writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, being devoid of merit and substance, both these petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. This order be placed in W.P. 1571/02 and a copy thereof be placed in the connected W.P. No. 1557/02.