Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1168 (MP)

Jay Baba Devpuri Warehouse v. State of M. P.

2009-10-06

S.C.SHARMA

body2009
ORDER S.C. Sharma, J. 1. Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in the aforesaid writ petitions, they were heard analogously together and disposed of by this singular order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in the case of W.P. No. 2407 of 2009 have been dealt with. 2. The petitioner before this Court, a partnership firm registered in the name and style of M/s Jay Baba Devpuri Warehouse, has filed this present writ petition being aggrieved by a notice dated 18th May, 2()09/19th May, 2009, by which the petitioner has been directed to obtain a licence under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Adhiniyam, 1972") and has also been directed to submit periodical returns as per Section 19 of the Adhiniyam, 1972. The contention of the petitioner is that a warehouse has been established by the petitioner in the year 2004 and a licence was obtained as per the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Warehouse Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947"). The petitioner has further stated that the petitioner is fulfilling the statutory requirements as provided under the provisions of the Act of 1947, however, on account of business rivalry, the warehouse which is being run by the petitioner was inspected by the official of the respondent No. 3, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Morena, and the petitioner was directed to furnish certain information in respect of the goods kept in the warehouse. The petitioner has further stated that the requisite information is being submitted to the Revenue Authorities as well as to the authorities under the Act of 1947, and in spite of this, the petitioner was directed by a notice dated 14th May, 2009 to submit an explanation as to why the petitioner is storing the food grains without obtaining licence under the provisions of Section 31 of the Adhiniyam, 1972. The petitioner has further stated that a reply has been filed to the notice dated 18th May, 2009, wherein it was categorically stated that no such licence is required to be obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner has further stated that a reply has been filed to the notice dated 18th May, 2009, wherein it was categorically stated that no such licence is required to be obtained by the petitioner. The petitioner has further stated that the warehouses owned by the Madhya Pradesh State Warehouse and Logistic Corporation are not required to obtain a licence under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972 and the Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh State Agricultural Marketing Board, Bhopal has issued an order dated 13th August, 2008 holding that the Madhya Pradesh State Warehouse and Logistic Corporation is not required to obtain a licence under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972. The contention of the petitioner is that discriminatory treatment cannot be meted out between the warehouses owned by the Madhya Pradesh State Warehouse and Logistic Corporation and the warehouse owned by the petitioner since the private traders are also keeping their goods in the warehouse owned by the Madhya Pradesh State Warehouse and Logistic Corporation and the same private traders are keeping the food grains in the warehouse of the petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner besides alleging discrimination has also argued before this Court that no such licence is required to be obtained under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972, as the petitioner is not liable to pay the market fee and once the petitioner is not liable to pay the market fee as provided under Section 19 of the Adhiniyam, 1972, the question of obtaining licence by the petitioner does not arise in the matter. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the notice dated 18th May, 2009/19th May, 2009. 3. A return has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 and the contention of the respondent No. 3 is that the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972, provides for obtaining a licence in case a warehouse is established in a market area. 4. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have argued before this Court that the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972 read with bye-laws of the Mandi Samiti, provide for submission of periodical returns and, therefore, the action of the respondent No. 3 is just and proper and the writ petition has to be dismissed. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have argued before this Court that the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972 read with bye-laws of the Mandi Samiti, provide for submission of periodical returns and, therefore, the action of the respondent No. 3 is just and proper and the writ petition has to be dismissed. 5. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 at the outset has stated before this Court that the notice issued to the petitioner refers to the submission of the periodical returns, however, the intention of the respondent No. 3 was not to direct the petitioner to submit the periodical return but the petitioner is required to furnish the necessary information as contained in Form 12-D enclosed along with Annexurc R-1. He has argued that evasion of market fee is taking place through out the State of Madhya Pradesh and the persons who are required to pay the market fee are not paying the same and, therefore, in order to ensure that the market fee is properly paid, necessary information in Form 12-D enclosed along with Annexure R-1 has to be furnished by the owners of the private warehouses. The learned Counsel for the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. The learned Deputy Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent/State has adopted the line of arguments advanced on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. In the present case, the petitioner has established a warehouse in the name and style of M/s Jai Baba Devpuri Warehouse for storing the agricultural produce in the warehouse. The petitioner has established the warehouse by obtaining licence under the provisions of the Act of 1947, and there is no dispute in respect of the same. Section 31 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 reads as under: Regulation of persons operating in market area.-- No person shall, in respect of any notified agricultural produce, operate in the market area as commission agent, trader, broker, weighman, hammal, surveyor, warehouse-man, owner or occupier of processing or pressing factories or such other market functionary except in accordance with the provision of this Act and the rules and bye-laws made thereunder. 9. 9. The aforesaid statutory provision includes 'warehouseman' and it provides that a warehouse-man shall be in respect of any notified agricultural produce, operate in the market area or act as a market functionary except in accordance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972, the rules and the bye-laws made thereunder. 10. Section 32(1) of the Adhiniyam, 1972, is relevant and the same reads as under: 32. Power to grant licences.-- (1) Every person specified in Section 31 who desires to operate in the market area shall apply to the market committee for grant of licence or renewal thereof in such manner and within such period as may be prescribed by bye-laws. 11. The aforesaid statutory provision makes it mandatory for every person specified in Section 31 who desires to operate in the market to obtain a licence. The word 'warehouse-man' is included in Section 31 and, therefore, a person operating a warehouse is certainly required to obtain a licence as per the provisions of Section 32 and, therefore, the action of the respondent No. 3, in issuing the notice dated 18th May, 2009/19th May, 2009 to the petitioner is in consonance with the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972. 12. The other question involved in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner is required to submit the return as provided under Section 19 of the Adhiniyam, 1972. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3 has fairly stated before this Court that the notice 18th May, 2009/19th May, 2009, reflects for filing a return under Section 19 of the Adhiniyam, 1972, however, the petitioner is not required to file a return under Section 19 and he is required to submit specific details as provided in Form 12-D enclosed along with Annexure R-1. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has also fairly stated before this Court that the petitioner is ready and willing to furnish the specific information as provided in Form 12-D enclosed along with Annexure R-1, and, therefore, the question relating to submission of return as per the provisions of Section 19 of the Adhiniyam, 1972 is not being dealt with in the present writ petition. 13. 13. In the present case, Section 31 of the Adhiniyam, 1972, makes it mandatory that a private warehouse has to obtain a licence from the Inspector, Mandi Samiti where such warehouse is located and it does not exempt warehouses established by the Madhya Pradesh State Warehouse and Logistic Corporation. No statutory provision has been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Deputy Advocate General who has appeared on behalf of the respondent/State, however, she has drawn attention of this Court to an order dated 13th August, 2008, passed by the Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh State Agricultural Marketing Board, Bhopal, wherein he has arrived at a conclusion that the warehouse owned by the Madhya Pradesh State Warehouse and Logistic Corporation are not required to obtain the licence from the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972. In the same letter, it is also reflected that the matter was referred to the Advocate General, State of Madhya Pradesh, for obtaining opinion in the matter and it was opined that no licence is required to be obtained by the Madhya Pradesh State Warehouse and Logistic Corporation from the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, under the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972. This Court is of the opinion that the provisions of Section 31 as quoted above makes it mandatory that a warehouse has to obtain a licence from the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti and merely because some letter has been issued by the Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh State Agricultural Marketing Board, it does not mean that a warehouse owned and established by the Madhya Pradesh State Warehouse and Logistic Corporation is exempted from the provisions of Section 31 of the Adhiniyam, 1972, till the aforesaid section is on the statute book. 14. 14. Resultantly, all the writ petitions stand disposed of with the following directions: (a) The petitioners shall obtain a licence from the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, concerned by submitting an appropriate application as per the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972, and also keeping in view the bye-laws of the Mandi Samiti, within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the Competent Authority of the Mandi Samiti shall process the application for grant of licence so preferred by the petitioners individually and appropriate orders shall be passed within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of such an application; (b) The petitioners as already accepted before this Court shall submit the specific information in Form 12-D enclosed along with Annexure R-1, i.e., 20-8(a) of the bye-laws of the Mandi Samiti, Morena. (c) The respondents shall not take any coercive action against the petitioners for the period which is already over for not obtaining the licence as per the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972 and keeping in view the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1972 and bye-laws of the Mandi Samiti. 15. With the aforesaid, writ petitions stand disposed of. No order as to cost.