JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. Petitioner being aggrieved with the issuance of Demand Notice i.e. Annexure P-4, dated 19th January, 2006 issued by respondent No. 2 i.e. Marketing Committee (Shimla & Kinnaur), Dhalli, Shimla and letter No. APMC/SML-347, dated April, 2006 (Annexure P-5), addressed to the Collector, Shimla, District Shimla for recovery of market fee amounting to Rs. 23,93,302/- as arrears of land revenue, has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for following reliefs:- “1. to issue writ of certiorari to quash impugned Demand Notice dated 19.01.2006 (Annexure-4 and further impugned letter dated April, 2006 (Annexure P-5) whereupon impugned recovery has been declared by the Collector Shimla as arrears of land revenue 2. To quash proceedings pending before Tehsildar Recovery, Shimla against demand No. 69/05-06 against petitioner's Firm M/s Cheog Vegetable Co. 3. To summon the record pertaining to this case before this Hon'ble Court. 4. To award the costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner. 5. Any other relief to which the petitioner may be found entitled in facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Briefly stated the facts as emerged from the records are that petitioner being Proprietor of M/s Cheog Vegetable Co. is a licensee under Section 8 of Himachal Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') for running business of vegetable & fruits etc. against shop No. 24 regulated market yard, Dhalli, Shimla-12. 3. Section 21 of the Act provides for payment of licence fee on ad volerem basis by the licensee to the market committee on agricultural produce bought or sold by licensee in the notified market area at that rate not exceeding one rupee for every one hundred rupees as may be. It would be apt to reproduce Section 21 of the Act:- “21. the market committee shall levy, on ad-volerem basis, fee on Agricultural produce brought or sold by licensee in the notified market area at that rate not exceeding one rupees for every one hundred rupees as may be fixed by the board: (a) no fee shall be leviable in respect of any transaction in which delivery of the agricultural produce brought or sold is not actually made; and (b) a fee shall be leviable only on the parties to a transaction in which delivery is actually made.” 4. Apart from above, respondents made rules, namely, Himachal Pradesh Produce Market Rules, 1971 (here-in-after referred to as 'the Rule'), prescribing therein the mechanism for appointment/nomination of official and nonofficial Members as well as transaction of business, levy and collection of fee etc. Accordingly, Chapter 8 of aforesaid Rules i.e. transaction of business levy and collection fee etc., rule 80 provides for levy and collection of fees on the sale and purchase of agricultural produce. It would be apt to reproduce Rule 80 here-in-below:- “80. Levy and collection of fees on the sale and purchase of agricultural produce – (1) Under Section 21 of the Act, a Committee shall levy fees on the agricultural produce bought or sold by licensees in the notified market area at the rates specified in the bye-laws or as fixed by the Board from time to time; Provided that no such fees shall be levied on the same agricultural produce more than once in the same notified area; in case of any dispute as to payment of market fees in this regard, a declaration and certificate evidential to its payment shall have to be submitted to the Market Committee in the manner specified in the bye-laws or if not so specified, as determined by the Committee itself under the approval of the Himachal Pradesh Marketing Board. (2) The responsibility of paying the fees prescribed under sub-rule (1) shall be of the buyer and if he is not a licensee then of the seller who may realise the same from the buyer. Such fees shall be leviable as soon as an agricultural produce is brought or sold by a licensee. (3) The fees shall be paid to the Market Committee or a paid officer duly authorised by the Committee to receive such payments on the day of the transactions or on the following day. (4) A receipt in Form 'K' shall be granted forthwith to the persons making payment in respect of any fees paid under these rules. (5) Every officer or servant employed by a Committee for the collection of fees shall be supplied by the Committee with a badge of office in the form as may be determined by it. The badge shall be worn by the officer or servant concerned while discharging his duties. (5) Every officer or servant employed by a Committee for the collection of fees shall be supplied by the Committee with a badge of office in the form as may be determined by it. The badge shall be worn by the officer or servant concerned while discharging his duties. (6) Every such officer or servant shall, before entering on his duties, furnish such security as may be specified in the bye-laws of the Committee concerned also may be read with rule 59. (7) For the purpose of this rule, agricultural produce shall be deemed to have been bought or sold in a notified market area:- (i) if the agreement of sale or purchase thereof is entered into the said area; or (ii) If in pursuance of the agreement of sale or purchase, the agricultural produce is weighed in the said area; and (iii) if in pursuance of the agreement of sale or purchase, the agricultural produce is delivered in the said area to the purchaser or to some other person on behalf of the purchaser. (8) If in the case of any transaction, any two or more of the acts mentioned in sub-rule (7) have been performed within the boundaries of two or more notified market areas, the market fee shall be payable to the Committee within whose jurisdiction the agricultural produce has been weighed in pursuance of the agreement of sale or, if no such weighment has taken place, to the Committee within whose jurisdiction the agricultural produce is delivered. (9) Every person employed or authorised by the Market Committee to collect fee shall be provided with a counter-foil receipt book, as may be specified in the bye-laws or determined by the Committee and a money box. He shall render accounts of all receipts at least once a day to the person duly authorised in this behalf by the Market Committee; who shall check the receipts and compare the balance of money received and also give a certificate to this effect over his dated signature on the back of the last counter-foil which shall again have to be got countersigned either by the Secretary or the Chairman of the Market Committee or any member or person authorised by the Chairman in this regard. 5. Further, Rule 82 provides that accounts of transaction and fees is to be maintained by every dealer. 5. Further, Rule 82 provides that accounts of transaction and fees is to be maintained by every dealer. It would be apt to reproduce Rule 82 here-in-below:- “82. Account of transaction and of fees to be maintained. - (1) Every licensed dealer and every dealer exempted under rule 10 from obtaining a licence shall submit to the Committee a return in Form 'M' showing his purchase and sale of each transaction of agricultural produce on each day or on the day on which the transaction takes place on the following day: Provided that a person exempt from taking a licence under rules 10(2)(ii) and 10(2)(iii) shall be exempt from provisions of this sub-rule in respect of sale of agricultural produce. (2) The Committee shall maintain a register in Form 'N' showing the total purchase and sale made by dealers and the fees recoverable and recovered from them. (3) The Committee shall levy the fee payable under Section 21 on the basis of the return furnished under sub-rule (1). (4) If any dealer fails to submit a return as prescribed in sub-rule (1), or the Committee a return as prescribed in sub-rule (1), or the Committee has reason to believe any such return is incorrect, it shall, after giving a notice in Form 'P' to the dealer concerned and after such enquiry as it may consider necessary, proceed to assess the amount of the dealer's business during the period, in question. (5) If a dealer habitually makes default in the submission of returns, or if in the opinion of the Committee, the dealer habitually submits false returns, the Committee may order the inspection of the dealer's accounts. (6) After an order under sub-rule (4) is made, the Committee shall inform the dealer of the date and place fixed for the inspection: Provided that if the dealer so desires, and pays such fee as the Committee may fix in this behalf, the inspection shall be made at the dealer's premises. (7) The Committee may authorise one or more of its members to carry out the inspection ordered by it under sub-rule (5). Such member or members shall be assisted by such employees of the Committee as may be deputed by it for that purpose. (7) The Committee may authorise one or more of its members to carry out the inspection ordered by it under sub-rule (5). Such member or members shall be assisted by such employees of the Committee as may be deputed by it for that purpose. (8) Such member or members may, after inspection, prepare a return, or may amend the return already furnished, on the basis of transactions, appearing in the dealer's account books, and the Committee may levy a fee or as the case may be additional fee, under section 21 on the basis of such return or amended return, but if the accounts books are reported to be unreliable, or as not providing sufficient material for proper preparation, or amendment of the return, or if no such books are maintained, or produced, the Committee may assess the amount of the dealer's business on such information as may be available, or on the basis of best judgment and levy fee on the basis of such assessment. (9) In addition to the fee or additional fee levied under sub-rule (8), the Committee may recover from the defaulter penalty equal to the fee or additional fee so levied. (10) Habitual default in the submission of returns and habitual submission of false return shall be a sufficient ground for suspension, or cancellation of, or refusal to renew, a licence, and the provisions of this rule shall apply in addition to and not in deregation of any other law, panel or otherwise, applicable to non-compliance, or defective compliance with any duty imposed upon a dealer by the Act or by these rules, or any bye-laws or order of a Committee. (11) An assessment order made under sub-rules (8) and (9) shall be communicated to him by means of a demand notice in Form 'Q' and a copy thereof shall be granted to a dealer on his making a written application and paying a sum of three rupees as copying fee to the Committee. Every Committee shall maintain a register of copying fees. Every Committee shall maintain a register of copying fees. (12) The copy shall be prepared in the office of the Committee and certified to be correct by the Secretary, or in his absence any another person appointed in this behalf by the Chairman, such certificate shall give the dates on which the application was received and the copy prepared and delivered to the applicant, shall be conclusive evidence of the correctness of these dates. (13) (i) An appeal against an assessment order made under sub-rules (8) and (9) shall lie to the Chairman of the Board. No such appeal shall be entertained unless the applicant has deposited the amount of fee assessed as due from him in full with the Committee concerned. (ii) The chairman of the Board, after hearing the appellant and also the Committee making the assessment, or, if he deems necessary, after such enquiry as he may think proper, may accept, modify or reject the assessment order appealed against. (iii) The Chairman of the Board may waive the whole or a part of the penalty imposed under sub-rule (9), in a case where such penalty would, in his judgment mean undue hardship to the appellant. (iv) The order passed by the Chairman of the Board shall be final and conclusive.” 6. In the present case, perusal of Annexures - P1 and P3 placed on record suggests that petitioner failed to furnish return Form 'M' for the period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005 and, as such, respondents vide Show Cause Notice dated 26.05.2005 asked petitioner to explain that why in addition to the market fee levied on the basis of assessment a penalty prescribed under rule 82 (9) of the said rules should not be imposed upon him. Further perusal of aforesaid notice suggest that in the event of failure to comply with the notice, Committee reserved right to assess under rule 82 (8) of the H.P. Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1971 to the best of its judgment. 7. Since petitioner failed to furnish return in terms of notice referred here-in-above, respondent-Committee vide Demand Notice dated 19.01.2006, directed petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.23,93,302/- on or before 19.02.2006, failing which said amount was to be recovered by arrears of land revenue qua the period 1.4.2004 to 31.03.2005. 8. 7. Since petitioner failed to furnish return in terms of notice referred here-in-above, respondent-Committee vide Demand Notice dated 19.01.2006, directed petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.23,93,302/- on or before 19.02.2006, failing which said amount was to be recovered by arrears of land revenue qua the period 1.4.2004 to 31.03.2005. 8. Records further suggests that respondent Committee after expiry of stipulated period sent communication to Collector, Shimla, District Shimla for recovery of market fee amounting to Rs.23,93,302/- from petitioner as arrears of land revenue (Annexure P-5). 9. Petitioner being aggrieved with the issuance of aforesaid Demand Notice as well as communication dated April, 2006, requesting Collector, Shimla, District Shimla for recovery of market fee as indicated here-in-above as arrears of land revenue, approached this Court by way of present writ petition stating therein that aforesaid orders were passed at his back as no opportunity of being heard was ever afforded to him before issuance of Demand Notice dated 19.01.2006 (Annexure P-4). Petitioner also placed on record letter dated 1.06.2005 (Annexure P-2) to demonstrate that immediately after receipt of notice dated 26.05.2005, he had sent communication to Secretary Market Committee, (Shimla & Kinnaur), Dhalli, Shimla intimating therein that petitioner Shri N.S. Chaudhary, proprietor of M/s CVC is unwell and, as such, is incapable of filing reply, if any, to the Show Cause Notice. Perusal of aforesaid letter also suggests that petitioner submitted that as soon as proprietor is recovered from illness he would attend office, but respondent-Committee ignored the aforesaid request having been made on behalf of petitioner and proceeded ahead with the matter and issued Demand Notice dated 19.01.2006 directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 23,93,302/- on or before 19.02.2006 on account of market fees and penalty for the period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005. 10. Shri Narender Sharma, Advocate, representing the petitioner vehemently argued that at no point of time before issuance of Demand Notice as referred to above, an opportunity was afforded to the present petitioner of being heard and, as such, impugned Demand Notice deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. 10. Shri Narender Sharma, Advocate, representing the petitioner vehemently argued that at no point of time before issuance of Demand Notice as referred to above, an opportunity was afforded to the present petitioner of being heard and, as such, impugned Demand Notice deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. Sharma also invited the attention of the Court to Annexure P-2 to demonstrate that immediately after receipt of Show Cause Notice, a communication was sent to the respondent-Committee intimating therein that proprietor concern is unwell, as such, is not in a position to file reply to the Show Cause Notice and had prayed for sometime but despite that respondent-Committee without affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner issued Demand Notice for recovery of market fees amounting to Rs. 23,93,302/-. Mr. Narender Sharma counsel representing the petitioner also stated that pursuant to the letter dated April, 2006, Tehsildar Recovery, Shimla issued notice to the petitioner qua the recovery of aforesaid amount. Immediately after receipt of notice, petitioner made representation to the Committee requesting therein to supply the assessment order on the basis of which impugned demand notice was raised and sent for recovery as arrears of land revenue but despite several requests respondent-Committee failed to supply the assessment order and as such petitioner was compelled to issue legal notice i.e. Annexure P-6 to respondent-Committee advising therein to immediately supply the order of the assessment and Demand Notice. 11. By way of legal notice as referred to above, petitioner stated that he never refused to assist/associate with the assessing authority, as such, there is no question/occasion to the assessing authority to assess the firm exparte. The petitioner also filed representation to the Chairman, H.P. Marketing Board to direct Secretary, Market Committee, Shimla & Kinnaur, Dhalli, Shimla – 12 to conduct a fresh assessment in the interest of justice. It also emerges from record that vide order dated 13.09.2006, Managing Director, H.P. State Agricultural Marketing Board called upon Secretary, Market Committee, Shimla & Kinnaur to send detailed comments relating to the Assessment case of Shri Nahar Singh Chaudhary proprietor of M/s Cheog Vegetables Co., Shop No. 24, Subzi Mandi, Dhalli, Shimla – 12 by 13.09.2006 so that action in the matter is taken accordingly. Since, no action pursuant to the aforesaid representation filed by petitioner was taken by the respondent-Committee, he was compelled to send another legal notice dated 11.04.2007 calling upon the respondent-Committee to provide copy of assessment order for the period 2004-2005, against which proceedings before Tehsildar Recovery have been initiated. 12. However, perusal of letter dated 27.10.2007 (Annexure P-11) suggests that Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee directed the petitioner to depute his representative to assist the inspection proceedings with sale – purchase records for the year, 2004-05. Similarly, vide communication dated 02.06.2008, Secretary of respondent-Committee informed the petitioner that the assessment case of M/s Cheog Vegetables Co. for the year, 2004-05 is scrutinized and as and when matter is finalised, the same would be referred to H.P. State Agricultural Market Board for taking final decision in the matter. In the meantime, pursuant to the request sent by Secretary, APMC (Shimla & Kinnaur), Dhalli, Collector, Shimla, District Shimla, proceeded ahead with the recovery of amount due from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue. 13. Since petitioner did not hear anything from the respondent-Committee with regard to his representation, he approached this Court by way of CWP No. 6417 of 2010 and this Court vide order dated 08.10.2010 stayed the proceedings for recovery on the condition to deposits an amount of Rs. 6 lacs before the Committee within two weeks. Respondent No. 3 i.e. Committee by way of detailed reply refuted the claim put-forth on behalf of petitioner by stating that petitioner is estopped to file present petition on account of his own act, conduct, omission and acquiescence. Respondent also stated that present petition is not maintainable because petitioner has not exhausted the alternate remedy available to him and, as such, prayed for dismissal of petition. Respondent specifically stated that as per provisions of the Act, petitioner was required to file appeal before the Chairman, Agricultural Produce Market Committee (S&K), Dhalli, Shimla – 12 within a time frame as specified under the provisions of the Act. Respondent also stated that petitioner has not come with clean hands and has failed to make full and complete disclosure of facts. Respondent also stated that despite several opportunities, petitioner failed to reply to the several notices issued to him for recovery of dues and as such compelling the Market Committee to resort to the provisions of Rule 82(8) of H.P. Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1971. Respondent also stated that despite several opportunities, petitioner failed to reply to the several notices issued to him for recovery of dues and as such compelling the Market Committee to resort to the provisions of Rule 82(8) of H.P. Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1971. Since, petitioner failed to submit documents in terms of notices issued to him, respondent-Committee finalised the matter in the absence of the business records for the year, 2004-05 on the basis of best judgment and informed orders of best judgment to the petitioner vide office letter No. APMC/SML-1-34/94-3167 dated 19.01.2006 advising him to deposit amount of Rs. 23,93,302/-. Respondent also stated that since petitioner failed to deposit the aforesaid amount, matter was sent to the Collector, Shimla for recovery of amount as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 specifically stated that present petition is a sheer abuse of the process of law and same deserves to be dismissed with heavy cost. 14. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records available. 15. Perusal of the documents placed on record i.e. Annexures P1 and P3 clearly suggests that petitioner failed to furnish return Form 'N' for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.03.2005 and, as such, Show Cause Notice on Form 'P' in terms of Rule 82(4) was sent to him, calling upon him to explain his position. Since, petitioner failed to put in appearance alongwith the records in terms of aforesaid notice issued by respondent-Committee, respondent issued Demand Notice in terms of Rule 82(1) on Form 'Q' calling upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 23,93,302/- to the Market Committee on or before 18.02.2006, failing which amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 16. Careful perusal of Rule 82(4) clearly provides that if any dealer fails to submit a return as prescribed in sub-rule (1), or the Committee has reason to believe that such return is incorrect, it shall, after giving a notice in Form “P' to the dealer concerned and after such enquiry as it may consider necessary, proceed to assess the amount of the dealer's business during the period, in question. In this regard Rule 82(7) provides that the Committee may authorise one or more of its members to carry out the inspection ordered by it under sub-rule (5) and in this process members would be assisted by such employees of the Committee as may be deputed for that purpose. Similarly, Rule 82(9) provides that in addition to the fee or additional fee levied under sub-rule (8), the Committee may recover from the defaulter penalty equal to the fee or additional fee so levied. Sub rule (11) of Rule 82 provides that an assessment order made under sub-rules (8) and (9) shall be communicated to by means of a Demand Notice in Form 'Q' and a copy thereof shall be granted to a dealer on his making a written application and paying a sum of three rupees as copying fee to the Committee. Rule 82 (13)(i) further provides for appeal against an assessment order made under sub-rules (8) and (9) before Chairman of the Board but no such appeal would be entertained unless applicant/appellant deposit the amount of fee assessed as due from him in full with the Committee concern. 17. Conjoint reading of provisions referred here-in-above clearly provides that licensee is under obligation to pay market fee levied under Section 21 of the Act on the basis of return furnished under sub-rule (1) of Rule 82. Bare perusal of Rule 82 (1) provides that every license dealer exempted under Rule 10 from taking licences shall submit return Form 'M' showing sale and purchase of each transaction on agricultural produce on each day of the transactions or on the following day. In the present case, as clearly emerges from the record that the petitioner failed to furnish return Form 'M' in terms of Rule 82 (i) for the period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005 and invited Demand Notice dated 19.01.2006 as ordered under Rule 82(II). Though by way of placing on record a communication i.e. Annexure P-2, petitioner has attempted to demonstrate that immediately after receipt of Show Cause Notice, Committee was informed that proprietor of Company is not in a position to visit the shop due to his illness but there is no document on record suggestive of the fact that petitioner at any point of time took steps to file return in terms of Rule 82 (I). 18. 18. Apart from above, there is no document available on record suggestive of the fact that any effort, whatsoever was made by the petitioner to suitably reply the Show Cause Notice dated 26.05.2005 and 14.07.2005. Even perusal of Annexure P-2 i.e. a communication sent by the petitioner to Secretary, Market Committee pursuant to Show Cause Notice dated 26.5.2005, itself suggests that same was written on 01.06.2005 and thereafter in between there is no document suggestive of the fact that petitioner ever cared to submit return pertaining to period 1.4.2004 to 31.03.2005 in terms of Show Cause Notice issued to him. When another Notice dated 14.07.2005 in terms of 82(4) was issued to him by the Committee specifically intimating that Committee shall proceed to assess under Rule 82 (8) of H.P. Agricultural Produce Market Rule to best of his judgment, petitioner got legal notice issued to the respondent Committee asking therein for the assessment made by the respondent- Committee. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 82 clearly empowers the Committee to assess the amount of the dealer's business during the period in question after giving notice in Form 'P' to the dealer concerned. Similarly, sub-rule 7 of Rule 82 provides that the Committee may authorise one or more of its members to carry out the inspection ordered by it under sub-rule (5). 19. This Court, after perusing the documents made available on record as well as relevant provisions of the Act as well as Rules, sees no illegality, whatsoever in issuance of Demand Notice dated 19.1.2006 (Annexure P-4) by the Secretary Market Committee. It stands duly proved on record that despite repeated notices, petitioner failed to submit return in form 'M' for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.03.2005, compelling respondent Committee to resort to provision of sub-rule (4) of Rule 82 wherein Committee itself proceeded to assess the amount of the dealer's business for the relevant period and raised Demand Notice of Rs. 23,93,302/- for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005 on account of market fee and penalty. 20. At this juncture, it would be profitable to reproduce relevant paras of preliminary objections filed by the respondent-Committee. “3. That the petitioner has not come with clean hands before the Hon'ble Court and has failed to make a full and complete disclosure of facts. 23,93,302/- for the period 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2005 on account of market fee and penalty. 20. At this juncture, it would be profitable to reproduce relevant paras of preliminary objections filed by the respondent-Committee. “3. That the petitioner has not come with clean hands before the Hon'ble Court and has failed to make a full and complete disclosure of facts. The petitioner is required to plead foundational facts enabling the Hon'ble Court to scrutinize the facts and contents of the right alleged to have been violated by the replying respondents. It is further most humbly submitted replying respondent has issued several notices to the petitioner firm for the recovery of dues. The replying respondent has issued notices to the petitioner vide office letter No. NO/APMC/SML-311, dated 10/05/2001 NO APMC/SML-1-34/94-512, dated 24.05.2001, NO APMC/SML-1-34/94-1838, dated 3/09/2001, No. APMC/SML-1-34/94/2034, dated 24/09/2001 NO APMC/SML-1-34/4-1291, dated 22/11/2002 NO APMC SML-1-34/94198-200, dated 21/05/2003, NO APMC/SML-1-34/94-198-200, dated 19/06/2003. 4. That the petitioner is having no cause of action against the replying respondents. It is further most humbly submitted that replying respondent has previously also issued notices to the petitioner firm to recover pending dues of market fee. It is most humbly submitted replying respondent issued first notice to the petitioner firm vide letter NO/APMC/SML-1-34/94-574, dated 26/05/2005 to produce the business records for the year 2004-2005. It is most humbly submitted that in reply to above notice the petitioner firm requested the replying respondent that on account of his ill health the petitioner could not produce the relevant record. The replying respondent again on 14/07/2005 issued second assessment notice vide letter NO APMC/SML-1-34-901 to the petitioner firm but the petitioner again failed to produce the records. It is most humbly submitted that replying respondent as per the provision of Rule -82(8) of the HP Agricultural Produce Markets Rule, 1971, finalized the matter in the absence of non-production of the business records for the year 2004-05 on the basis of best judgment. The order of best judgment was communicated to the petitioner firm vide office letter NO/APMC/SML-1-34/94-3167, dated 19/01/2006 to deposit an amount of Rs. 23,93,302/- (Rupees twenty three lakh, ninety three thousand, three hundred and two) only but in spite of the order the petitioner failed to deposit an amount on or before 18/02/2006. The order of best judgment was communicated to the petitioner firm vide office letter NO/APMC/SML-1-34/94-3167, dated 19/01/2006 to deposit an amount of Rs. 23,93,302/- (Rupees twenty three lakh, ninety three thousand, three hundred and two) only but in spite of the order the petitioner failed to deposit an amount on or before 18/02/2006. It is most humbly submitted that replying respondent as per the provision of Act sent the case to the Collector for recovery of amount from the petitioner.” 21. Bare perusal of aforesaid reply preferred on behalf of respondent-Committee clearly suggests that despite several notices, petitioner failed to file return in Form 'M' for the period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005 and as such contention put-forth by the petitioner that he was not given opportunity of being heard at the time issuing Demand Notice dated 19.01.2006 appears to be untenable/false and cannot be accepted at all. Rather this Court after perusing the reply filed on behalf of respondent-Committee as well as documents made available on record by petitioner is fully convinced that petitioner was afforded adequate opportunities to explain that why he failed to return Form 'M' for the period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005. Now while adverting to the another contention put forth on behalf of petitioner that no assessment orders made under sub-rules (8) and (9), were ever communicated to him, this Court finds that as per sub-rule 11 of Rule 82, there was no requirement whatsoever, for the respondent-Committee to make available assessment order made by it resorting to provisions of Rule 82(8)(9). Bare perusal of sub-rule (11) of Rule 82 clearly provides that assessment order made sub-rules (8) & (9) would be communicated to the assessee by means of Demand Notice in Form 'Q' that too on his making written application and paying a sum of rupees three as copying fee to the Committee. 22. In the present case, bare perusal of Annexure P-4 i.e. Demand Notice dated 19.01.2006 clearly suggests that it has been made in terms of Rule 82 (11) and Form 'Q' and this Court sees no force, whatsoever in the contention put-forth by the petitioner that since no assessment order was made available to him, he had no occasion, whatsoever to deposit the amount qua the same. At the cost of repetition, it is again stated that respondent-Committee was not under any obligation to make available assessment carried out by it by resorting to provisions of Rule 82 and as such no fault, if any, can be found with the respondent-Committee. Since, petitioner failed to furnish return for the period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005, respondent-Committee rightly resorted to the provisions of Rule 82(8)(9) and after carrying out assessment, issued demand Notice in terms of Rule 82(II) calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount as has been referred here-in-above. This Court sees no illegality, whatsoever in the Demand Notice as well as Show Cause Notice issued by the respondent-Committee asking petitioner to deposit amount. It is also seen from sub-rule (13) of Rule 82 that remedy of appeal is/was available to the petitioner against assessment order made under sub-rules (8) & (9) of Rule 82 to the Chairman of Board subject to depositing the amount of fee assessed as due from him in full with the Committee concern. 23. At this stage, counsel representing the petitioner vehemently argued that since no assessment order was ever made available to the petitioner, he had no occasion, whatsoever to file an appeal in terms of sub-rule (13) of Rule 82. This Court after perusing provisions contained in sub-rule (13) of Rule 82, is unable to accept the contention made in this regard by the petitioner, because plain reading of aforesaid rules suggest that appeal would lie against assessment order made under sub-rule (8) & (9) of Rule 82. In the present case, as clearly emerge from the Demand Notice dated 19.01.2006 issued in terms of Rule 82 (11) of Form 'Q', petitioner was communicated assessment with the direction to pay a sum of Rs. 23,93,302/-. 24. This Court after perusing the documents available on record as well as reply filed thereto is fully satisfied that despite sufficient opportunities, petitioner failed to submit its return for the period 01.04.2004 to 31.03.2005, compelling respondent-Committee to proceed to assess the amount of the dealer's business during the period in question, resorting to provision of Rule 82. Once assessment order made under sub-rule (8) & (9) was communicated to the petitioner in Form 'Q' by means of Demand Notice, in Form 'Q', he could assail the same by way of appeal before the Chairman of the Board in terms of sub-rule (13)(i) of Rule 82. Once assessment order made under sub-rule (8) & (9) was communicated to the petitioner in Form 'Q' by means of Demand Notice, in Form 'Q', he could assail the same by way of appeal before the Chairman of the Board in terms of sub-rule (13)(i) of Rule 82. 25. In the present case, petitioner without exhausting remedy of statutory appeal provided under the Act and Rule has approached this Court directly for redressal of his grievance. However, perusal of Annexures P-11 & P-12, letters dated 27.10.2007 and 02.06.2008 sent by Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee to petitioner suggests that pursuant to his representation, record was summoned by the Chairman, H.P. Marketing Board, Khalini and is still under consideration. Counsel representing Market Committee fairly stated that in case petitioner submits his accounts in terms of Show Cause Notice dated 26.5.2005 and 14.7.2005, the Committee would consider the same. Mr. Sharma also stated that though it stands duly proved on record that due opportunities were afforded to the petitioner before issuing Demand Notice, petitioner may file an appeal before Chairman, Marketing Board afresh on the basis of Demand Notice issued in Form 'Q' and same would be considered and decided on merits. 26. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court sees no illegality in the Demand Notice issued by the respondent-Committee but in the interest of justice and fair stand taken by Shri S.C. Sharma, counsel representing the Committee, deems it fit to dispose of this petition with the directions to the appellate authority to consider/decide the appeal, if any, filed by the petitioner in terms of sub-rule (13) of Rule 82, after affording due opportunity of being heard to him. Accordingly, present petition is disposed of with a liberty to petitioner to file appeal before the Chairman, H.P. Marketing Board, Khalini, Shimla within a period of 30 days from passing of this Order and thereafter Chairman H.P. Marketing Board, Khalini is directed to decide the appeal, if any, filed by the petitioner, within two months. 27. Pending applications, if any, stands disposed of.