Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9
PETITIONER:
NANDU MAL GIRDHARI LAL ETC. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT03/04/1992
BENCH:
MOHAN, S. (J)
BENCH:
MOHAN, S. (J)
PUNCHHI, M.M.
RAY, G.N. (J)
CITATION:
1992 AIR 2084 1992 SCR (2) 446
1993 SCC Supl. (1) 338 JT 1992 (2) 537
1992 SCALE (1)778
ACT:
U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam Act, 1964/Rules,
1964: Sections 2,7,10,17/Rules 66,79-Market fees-Levy of-
Retrospective effect-Validity of.
HEADNOTE:
After this Court upheld the validity of the U.P. Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam Act, 1964, (AIR 1980 SC 1124), the
authorities called upon the commission agents carrying on
trade in the notified market area to submit their accounts
in order to fix their liability towards market fee. The
Traders Association objected that since no notification was
issued under section 10 of the Act, market fee could not be
levied. The authorities replied that the required
notification was already issued on 9.10.67. Certain other
objections were also raised and th authorities informed the
Traders Association that such objections were not tenable
and directed production of accounts. Demand Notices were
also issued and the traders were informed that if the market
fee was not paid, the same would be realised as arrears of
land revenue. The traders filed Writ Petitions before the
High Court challenging the demand notices.
The High Court having dismissed the Writ Petitions,
some of the Commission Agents have preferred the present
appeals.
The appellants contended that the liability sought to
be fixed retrospectively from 1973 to 1978 on the commission
agents was unreasonable, as they would not be able to
realise the same from the purchasers scattered all over
India, especially after a long gap and the relief against
the purchaser has become time barred and as such the
retospective levy would impose a great burden on the
commission agents; that since the operation of the
notification was stayed by the High Court in 1973, which
stay was in force till 1975, no market fee could be levied
for the transactions during that period; and that as no
notification has been issued under section 10 read with
proviso to Rule 66 providing for trade charges and market
fees in respect of Khandsari sugar, the demand was invalid.
447
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9
On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that a
resolution was passed by the Mandi Samiti that market fee
would be payable with effect from 1.10.73 and that the same
was given wide publicity in the market area and also through
newspapers.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court,
HELD : 1. The fee has been validly imposed and no
exception could be taken to the same. It is incorrect to
state that notification under section 10 has not been
issued. Merely because there was a stay, it does not mean
the liability disappears. The notification dated 13.9.1973
stood suspended at the instance of other traders. That
cannot enure to the benefit of the appellants herein. They
were neither the petitioners nor the respondents in those
proceedings. Therefore, they cannot take advantage of the
stay order and plead inability to pay. In as much as the
Act itself has been retrospectively amended, the appellants
cannot disown their liability. [451C,D]
Jang Singh v. Brijlal and Ors., [1964] 2 SCR 145; Union
Carbide Corporation and Ors. v Union of India and Ors.,
[1991] 4 SCC 585, distinguished.
Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar & Co. v. State of U.P., AIR
1980 SC 1124, referred to.
2. It is one of the settled principles that because of
plenary powers, the Legislature could pass legislation
prospectively as well as retrospectively. This being so,
the retorspective liability between 11.10.73 and 12.10.75,
the period in dispute in these appeals, cannot be avoided.
[457E,F]
3. Merely because the commission agents could not
realise the amount from the purchasers at this distance of
time or that the purchasers are scattered, the statutory
liability cannot be avoided. [458B]
4. The appellants are liable to pay the demands raised
by the respondent Samiti against them. However, if with
regard to any particular transaction it is proved that by
the commission agents the purchasers had paid the market
fee, on such transaction the Samiti will not make them
liable once again. [458C]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 7356-
7360 of 1983 etc. etc.
448
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.83 of the
Allahabad High Court in C.M.W.P. No. 6477, 6606, 6602, 6608,
6517 of 1981.
R. K. Jain, B.D. Aggrawal, Ramesh Chandra and P.K. jain
for the Appellants.
E.C. Agrawala for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
MOHAN, J. Since common points of law are involved, all
these appeals are dealt with under one judgment.
The appellants, commission agents were carrying on
trade in the notified market area. The attack is as to the
levy of market fee on them in relation to the business of
Khandsari sugar. To highlight the issue involved we will
set out the legal background first.
The U.P. Legislature passed an Act called U.P. Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam in the year 1964 as Act 25 of 1964.
The object of the Act was to regulate the sale and purchase
of agricultural produce and for the establishment,
superintendence and control of markets in U.P. Section 5 of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9
the Act confers powers on the State Government in relation
to regulation of sale and purchase of any agricultural
produce in any area wherein such transactions are usually
carried on and for that purpose to declare the area as a
market area. This declaration is to be by way of a
notification. Section 7 empowers even a portion of that
market area be specified as a principal market yard, while
such other portions could be specified as sub-market yard.
The effect of such declaration of market area is spoken to
under Section 9. In that, no person shall deal with
specified agricultural produced except in accordance with
the conditions of licence granted by the Committee. Sub-
section (9)(ii) is specific, while it says the commission
agent, trader or broker will have to carry on the business
in accordance with the conditions of licence. Section 10
prohibits realisation of trade purchases from the producers
form the sale and purchase of specific agricultural produce
except those which are permitted by the rules or bye-laws.
Section 17, about which we will deal with later talks
of the powers of the Mandi Samiti. Section 40 confers
rule-making power.
449
The commission agents, carrying on business by sale and
purchase of gur, rab, shakkar and khandsari questioned the
enforcement of the Act in respect of these merchandise. A
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held they would
not constitute agricultural produce within the meaning of
clause (a) of Section 2 of the Act. The reason was it
involves manufacture changing the nature of agricultural
produce.
In order to get over this difficulty, the definition of
agricultural produce was amended by U.P. Act 10 of 1970, and
as a result, gur, rab, shakkar and khandsari and jagger
became agricultural produce. The validity of amending Act
10 of 1970 was questioned on various grounds, which, of
course, need not concern us. A Division Bench in Special
Appeal No. 175 of 1973 dated 7.9.77 concurring with the
Learned Single Judge repelled the contentions and upheld the
validity.
It is important to note that pending this Special Appeal
No. 175 of 1973, the operation of the notice dated 13.9.73
issued under Section 8 of the Act was suspended in so far as
it related to khandsari. However, on 6.8.75 order of stay
was modified and the Mandi Samiti was directed to keep the
amounts realised by them in a separate account. This order
was by agreement between the parties. It has an important
bearing since arguments were raised as to the effect of the
order of stay, and that is why, we are mentioning at this
stage itself.
The trader carrying on business within the jurisdiction
of several Market Committees challenged the levy of fee
before the High Court of Allahabad from time to time. There
were several rounds of litigation in which they failed.
Thereupon, they came up with an appeal. This court
ultimately gave a direction that the market fee should be
regularised and charged in the light of the judgment.
Concerning the services whenever rendered by the Market
Committee, it was observed at page 1141(A.I.R. 1980 SC) as
follows :
"....We do hope that services are being rendered
and will continue to be rendered by the various
Market Committees in the light of the judgment of
this Court in Kewal Krishan Puri’s case. If in
regard to any particular Market Committee it is
found that services are not being rendered or in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9
future lapses are made then it will be open to the
payers of fees to reagitate the matter in the High
Court in the light of that judgment."
450
The result of the judgment was the validity of U.P.
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Act was upheld. Thereafter, the
Commission Agents were called upon to submit the account for
the period 11.10.73 to 12.8.75 in order to fix the liability
of the market fee. An objection was raised by the Traders
Association that since no notification has been issued under
Section 10, market fee was not leviable. To this, a reply
was sent by the Director that as early as 9.10.67, a
notification had been issued. Then again, certain other
objections were raised. The Mandi Samiti informed the
Association that the objections were not tenable and the
Samiti need not have recourse to Rule 66 to support the
market fee and directed the production of account. Further
to his, a demand notice was issued and the appellants were
also informed should the market fee be not paid, it would be
realised by way off arrear of land revenue. As a result,
Writ Petitions were filed challenging the demands for the
period 11.10.73 to 12.8.75. A Division Bench of the
Allahabad High Court dismissed those Writ Petitions. Hence,
these civil appeals by a few of the commission agents.
Though several contentions were raised before the High
Court, only the following points were raised before us by
the appellants:-
(i) The liability to pay market fees was on the
seller till 1973. Thereafter, till 1978 the
purchasers, were made liable. The commission
agents are only the collecting agencies from the
sellers. The liability of the commission agents is
sought to be fixed up to 1978 retrospectively from
12.6.73. The fixation of such a libaility is
unreasonable. Firstly, the commission agents were
unable to realise the said amount from the
purchasers who were scattered all over India.
After 1980, when the demand was made the relief
against such purchaser has become time-barred.
(ii) The retrospective levy would impose a
great burden on the commission agents.
The operation of notification of the State
Government dated 13.9.73 including definition of
agricultural produce under Section 8 was suspended
by the High Court on 11.10.73. The stay was in
force till 1975. Hence, no market fee could be
charged or paid by anyone for the transaction
during that period.
451
(iii) Admittedly, no notification has been
issued under Section 10 read with proviso of Rule
66 providing for trade charges and market fees in
respect of khandsari sugar. Therefore, the demand
is invalid.
In opposition to this, it is argued on behalf of the
Samiti as early as 1975, Mandi Samiti, Muzaffarnagar passed
a resolution that the market fee would be payable @ 1% with
effect from 1.10.73. This resolution was given wide
publicity in the market area as well as through newspapers.
The fee has been validly imposed and no exception could
be taken to the same. It is incorrect to submit that
notification under Section 10 has not been issued. Merely
because there was a stay, it does not mean the liability
disappears. The notification dated 13.9.1973 stood
suspended at the instance of other traders. That cannot
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9
ensure to the benefit of the appellants herein. They were
neither the petitioners north respondents. Therefore,
they cannot take advantage of the stay order and plead
inability to pay. In as much as the Act itself has been
restrospectivley amended, the appellants cannot disown the
liability.
In order to appreciate the respective contentions we
will now refer to the relevant provisions of law in
relation to levy of market fess. Originally (prior to 1978)
Section 17 read as follows :-
"A committee shall, for the purpose of this Act,
have the power to-
(i).........
(ii) ..........
(iii) Levy and collect.
(a) "Such fees as may be prescribed for the issue
or renewal of licences, and
(b) Market fees on transactions of sale or purchase
of specified agricultural produce in the principal
market yard and sub-market yards from such persons
and at such rates as may be prescribed, but not
exceeding one half per centum of the price of the
specified agricultural produce sold or purchased
therein:
452
Provided that no market fee shall be levied or
collected on retail sale of any specified
agricultural produce where such sale is made to the
consumer.
(iv) ..........
(vii) ..........."
By President’s Act No. 13 of 1973, Section 17(iii)(b)
was substituted by the following sub-section:-
"17(iii)(b) market fees, which shall be payable by
purchasers, on transactions of sale of specified
agricultural produce in the principal market yard
or a sub-market yard at such rates, being not less
than one per centum and not more than 1-1/4 per
centum of the price of the agricultural produce so
sold, as the State Govt. may specify by
notification in the Gazette."
The material change effected by this amendment was to
fix the liability on the purchaser instead of the seller.
Further, two limits were also prescribed viz. 1% and 1-1/2%
giving the right to the State Govt. to fix any amount in
between these limits relating to any Mandi Samiti. This
power was exercised by the Market Committees through the
bye-laws under the rules.
However, by U.P. Act 7 of 1978, a new sub-clause came
to be introduced retrospectively with effect from 12.6.73.
As a result, the Section reads as under:-
"Power of the committee- a committee shall for the
purpose of this Act, have the power to :-
(i) ...........
(ii)............
(iii) levy and collect.
(a) .........
(b) Market fees which shall be payable on
transactions of sale of specified agricultural
produce in the market area at such
453
rate, being not less than 1 per centum and not
more than 1 -1/2 per centum of the price of the
agricultural produce so sold as the State
Government may specify by notification and such
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9
fees shall be realised in the following manner :-
(1) If the produce is sold through a Commission
agent, the commission agent may realise the market
fees from the producer and shall be liable to pay
the same to the committee.
(2) If the produce is purchased directly by a
trader from a producer the trader shall be liable
to pay the market fees to the committee.
(3) If the produce is purchased by a trader from
another trader, the trader selling the produce may
realise it from purchaser and shall be liable to
pay the market fees to the committee, and
(4) In any other case of sale of such produce, the
purchaser shall be liable to pay the market fees to
the committee.
(iv)............
..........
(viii) ............"
Two things are evident from the above-(1) the Section
has got restrospective effect w.e.f. 12.6.73 and (2)
Commission agents are made liable.
Rule 66 runs to the following effect :-
"Market fee (Section 17 (iii) - (1) The Market
Committee shall have the power to levy and collect
fees on the specified agricultural produce brought
and sold in the Market Yards at such rates as may
be specified in the bye-laws but not exceeding one-
half of one per centum of the price of the
specified agricultural produce :
Provided that the market fee shall be payable by
the seller :
454
Provided further that no market fee shall be
levied and charged prior to the date on which
provisions of Section 10 of the Act are enforced.
Explanation - For the purposes of this sub-rule, a
sale of specified agricultural produce shall be
deemed to have been effected in Market Yard if it
has been weighed or measured by a licensed weighman
or measurer in the Market Yard for the purpose of
sale, notwithstanding the fact that the
proprietorship of such agricultural produce has by
reason of such sale passed to a person in a place
outside the Market Yard.
(2) No market fee shall be levied more than once
on any consignment of the specified agricultural
produce brought for sale in the Market Yard if the
market fee has already been paid on it in any
Market Yard of the same Market Area and in respect
of which a declaration has been made and a
certificate has been given by the seller in Form
No. V.
Notes : Rule 66 cannot be said to be invalid in so
far as it sub-delegated the authority to fix the
rate of market fee. Mandi Samiti v. L.P. Singh,
1972 ALJ 643."
By notification dated 27.10.65, it was declared in
exercise of the power under Section 6 of the Act that from
31.1.66 the area of the following Gaon Sabha for purposes of
the said Act with regard to (1) Wheat (2) Gram (3) Peas (4)
Paddy (5) Rice (6) Arhar (7) Sarson and Lahi (8) Potatoes
(9) Cotton (10) All kind of Gur, Rab and Deshi Shakkar and
their compounds will be the Muzaffarnagar Mandi area.
Thus, it would be seen that 10 agricultural produce had
come to be included. It also requires to be noted that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9
khandsari sugar did not form part of the notification. On
26.9.67, a notification was issued under Section 7 of the
Act that from 30.12.67. the principal Mandi area and sub-
Mandi area of Muzaffarnagar Mandi area came to be specified.
Then came the notification dated 9.10.67 issued in exercise
of the power under Section 10(1). That notification is
reproduced below :-
"October 9, 1967
455
No. SAM-1038 (Rec) 3812
In exercise of the power delegated by the State
Government vide Krishi (kha vibhag Notification No.
R.2048/XII-8-1498-65, dated September 14, 1967, it
is hereby notified under sub-section (1) of section
10 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964
(U.P. Act No. XXV of 1964), that with effect from
December 20, 1969, no person shall, in the
Muzaffarnagar Principal Market yard and the Shahpur
and Budhana Sub-Market Yards of Muzaffarnagar
market Area levy charge or realise any trade
charges other than those prescribed under rule 79
of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Niyamavli, 1966, in respect of any transaction of
sale or purchase of the agricultural produce
specified vide notification No. H5353A/XII-B-
1047(2) 65, dated October 27, 1965."
The last of the notification is one issued under Sub-
Section (1) of Section 8 on 13.9.73, which is reproduced
below:-
"Government of Uttar Pradesh Agriculture Section-5
No.A-7756 12B (5) 490/72
Dated : Lucknow 13, September, 1973
Notification
Under the proviso of Sub-Section (1) of Section
8 U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Act, 1964, (U.P. Act
No. 25 of 1964) in Notification No. H-7372/12B-
1200(3)69 dated 16.3.71 issued by the State
Government with regard to the Agriculture
Production in the Muzaffarnagar Mandi area District
Muzaffarnagar, under Section 6 of the said Act, in
Notification No. H-5353-A/12B- 1047(2)/65 dated
27.10.65, the Government had made a declaration of
its objects including in the specified agricultural
production in the list. And objections and
suggestions if any with regard to the proposed
declaration had to be made to the Director of
Agriculture within the period specified in the said
notification. And with regard to the said object,
consideration has been done by the State Government
of all objection and suggestion received by the
Director of Agriculture within the prescribed time.
456
Now therefore in exercise of the powers
conferred by part(a) of Sub-Section (1) of Section
8 of the said Act the Governor declares that from
25.9.73 for the purposes of the said Act, the
following agriculture products i.e. (1) Khatai
Amchur (2) Barseen (seed) (3) Fodder (4) khansari
will be included in the list of agricultural
products as indicated in Section 6 of the said Act
with regard to the Muzaffarnagar Mandi area
District Muzaffarnagar.
By order :
Sd/- A.P. Singh
Deputy Secretary.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9
The effect of the last notification is khandsari gets
included to the list of agricultural produce to the
notification issued under Section 6 dated 27.10.65.
As a matter of fact, Section 8 of the Act clearly
postulates such a procedure. Section 8(1)(a) is reproduced
below :-
"Alteration of Market Area and Modification of
the List of Agricultural produce-(1) The State
Government, where it considers necessary or
expedient in the public interest so to do, may, by
notification in the Gazette, and in such other
manner as may be prescribed and with effect from
the date specified in the notification,-
(a) include any agricultural produce in, or
exclude any agricultural produce from, the list of
agricultural produce specified in the notification
under Section 6;"
The consequence of it will be that w.e.f. December 20,
1969, no person in the Muzaffarnagar principal Market Yard
may levy charge or realise any trade charges other than
those prescribed under rule 79 in respect of sale or
purchase of agricultural produce, specified in the
notification dated 27th October, 1965.
This is apparent from the notification under Section 10
dated 9.10.67 as seen from the above extract.
On 24.9.73, acting under Section 17(iii) as amended,
the State
457
Government issued a notification providing for realisation
of market fee @1% on the price on sale and purchase of
specified agricultural produce in the principal Market Yard
of Muzaffarnagar w.e.f. 1.10.73.
Pursuant to this notification, the U.P. Krishi Utpadan
Mandi Samiti Muzaffarnagar informed as follows:-
"...all the traders and commission agents of the
Mandi Area, Muzaffarnagar, Distt. Muzaffarnagar,
are informed that they will now realise Mandi fee
on all agricultural produce at its sale value at
the rate of 1% of the total sale or purchase from
the purchaser. The amount of Mandi fee realised in
this way shall be deposited as order earlier in the
office of the Samiti by the commission agent
traders within the prescribed period and after this
notice no amount will be deducted as Mandi fee from
the seller.
Sd. Kanhaiyalal Agrawal
Pergana Officer, Muzaffarnagar
President
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti
Muzaffarnagar"
From the above narration it will be clear that once the
Act itself amended retrospectively w.e.f. 12.6.73, we do not
know how the commission agent can escape the liability. It
is one of the settled principles that because of plenary
powers, the Legislature could pass legislations
prospectively as well as retrospectively. This being so,
the liability between 11.10.73 to 12.10.75, the period in
dispute in these appeals, cannot be avoided.
It has already been seen how khandsari has come to be
validly included. Therefore, for dealing in this commodity
the commission agents will be liable to pay at the rate
prescribed.
Turning to the stay, it has already been noted that
though stay was granted on 11.10.73, it was not at the
instance of the appellants herein. As a matter of fact,
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9
they never questioned the validity of the amending Act or
the notification. Therefore, they cannot take advantage of
the same. The said stay also came to be modified on 6.8.75
by agreement. Even to that agreement, the appellants were
not the parties. Therefore, neither of the
458
rulings viz. Jang Singh v. Brijlal and others, [1964] 2 SCR
145 and Union Carbide Corporation and others v. Union of
India and others, [1991] 4 SCC 585 would have any
application to the facts of the case. Merely because the
commission agents cannot realise the amount from the
purchasers at this distance of time or that they are
scattered, the statutory liability cannot be avoided.
In the result, we hold that they are liable to pay the
demands raised by the respondent Samiti against them.
However, if with regard to any particular transaction it is
proved by the commission agents the purchasers had paid the
market fee on such transaction the Samiti will not make them
liable once again. Subject to the only qualification the
appeals are hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
G.N. Appeal dismissed.
459