Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2109 (ALL)

ARVIND SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2018-10-04

A.P.SAHI, HARSH KUMAR

body2018
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nripendra Mishra for the Mandi Parishad, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 and learned Standing Counsel for the State, respondent No. 1. 2. This writ petition has been filed by a licensed weighman, who has been given a license for life time. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that dispute arose after the installation of an electronic weighing bridge by the respondent No. 6 managed by the respondent No. 7 and the entire weighing exercise being undertaken by them without the aid of the petitioner and to his exclusion. Consequently a mandamus has been sought for restraining the respondents to get the weighment/measurement work being carried out excluding the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 within the Mandi Sthal, Pahadiya, District Varanasi. 4. For this, Sri Pande, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to the provisions of Section 2(bb) of Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 which defines weighman as follows : “2(bb) “Weighman” means a person who, in the ordinary course of business, is engaged in weighing of agricultural produce in connection with a transaction of sale or purchase thereof.” 5. He has also invited the attention of the Court to the licensing provision as contained in Section 17 whereby the Mandi Samiti is authorZed to issue licenses. He has then drawn the attention of the Court to Sections 40(2)(xv) & (xxvii) which are extracted hereinunder : “40(2)(xv) matters in regard to the inspection of weights and measures, and weighing and measuring instruments in use in the Market Area; (xxvii) the time, place and manner of sampling, sale, purchase, weighment and recording of transactions and mode of payments.” Under Rule 83 weighing or measuring is to be carried out by a licensed weighman. Rule 83 is extracted hereinunder : “83. Weighing or measuring by licensed weighman or measurer [Section 40(2) (xxvii)].—(1) All weighing or measuring of any specified agricultural produce brought in a Principal Market Yard or any Sub-Market Yard for sale or purchase shall be done only by licensed weighman or measurer. (2) All weighing of the specified agricultural produce in the Market Yards shall be done by means of a beam balance and metric weights.” 6. (2) All weighing of the specified agricultural produce in the Market Yards shall be done by means of a beam balance and metric weights.” 6. Rule 91 further provides that the market committee shall if so required with the permission of the officials referred to therein, erect one or more weigh-bridges and ensure its working order. It further provides that any purchaser or seller may at his option, have his produce weighed on it on payment of charges fixed by the committee and in such a case a weighment slip under the signatures of an employee of the market committee, who may be authorZed by the committee shall be issued to such seller or purchaser. 7. It is in this background that the present writ petition has been filed contending that the respondent Nos. 6 & 7 without complying with the provisions of Rule 91 read with Rule 83 are executing the activities of measurement without a licensed weighman and thereby excluding the services of petitioner, who is entitle to carry out the same. It is also according to the petitioner affects the entire activity of weighment carried inside the Mandi Sthal which is contrary to the aforesaid Rules and consequently any such activity being permitted by the respondent-Mandi Samiti being not in accordance with the Rules, the Samiti be restrained and a mandamus may be issued to that effect. 8. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondent Mandi Parishad to which a rejoinder affidavit has been filed. The respondents have taken a stand that under Rule 91 the weigh-bridge can be established and can be run in the manner prescribed therein at the option of seller or purchaser and its utilZation is supplementary to, and not dependent on Rule 83. 9. The contention, therefore, between the parties appears to be that if weighment is to be carried out under Rule 91 then according to the petitioner it is subject to Rule 83 and without there being a licensed weighman, no such activity can be carried out which is being unathorZedly done by private persons employed by the respondent Nos. 6 & 7. 10. Having considered the submissions raised, we do not find any conflict between Rule 83 and Rule 91 that can operate independently. Rule 83 provides for operating a weigh-bridge by a licensed weighman. 6 & 7. 10. Having considered the submissions raised, we do not find any conflict between Rule 83 and Rule 91 that can operate independently. Rule 83 provides for operating a weigh-bridge by a licensed weighman. Rule 91 on the other hand permits the carrying out of the activities through an employee of the market committee who is authorZed to issue a weighment slip. The purpose of license can be explained keeping in view, that a person who is to act as a weighman as defined under Section 2(bb) is one who is engaged in the activity of carrying out weighment in the ordinary course of business. If this so, then an employee of the market committee is not excluded from discharging any such function and being an employee of the market committee he does not require any separate license, inasmuch as Rule 91 itself indicates that the employee will function under the authorZation of the committee. Therefore, there is no over lapping between the two rules and they can both exist and operate independently. Apart from this there is no special qualification or eligibility prescribed for a licensed weighman or of an employee engaged under Rule 91. The former functions on a license by the Samiti, whereas the latter functions on authorZation. Both are lawfully authorZed weighman and stand at par in their nature of function. In the absence of any generic difference, an employee under Rule 91 is not required to have a separate license to act as a weighman. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that this will be imposing somebody to carry out the activities of weighment without having a license. We are not inclined to agree with this proposition as explained above. The manner of operation under the both rules being separately provided for they neither overlap each other nor are they in conflict with each other. 12. We do not find any reason so as to issue any mandamus restraining the respondents but it is clarified that the respondent Mandi Samiti shall carry out the activity of weighment in accordance with the Rules. The writ petition is dismissed with the said observations.