Market-fee liability must be reassessed after considering the huller’s records and hearing him.

The petitioner, proprietor of a rice mill, claimed that he only hulled paddy belonging to others for a fee and was neither a trader nor a dealer in paddy or rice.

Following proceedings to recover market fee, the Market Committee resolved to prosecute him.

In W.P. No. 23420 of 2017 and Criminal Revision Petition No. 503 of 2017, a Co-ordinate Bench set aside his conviction and remitted the matter to the Director of Agricultural Marketing for an order under Section 132(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966, after hearing him.

The Director subsequently held the petitioner liable to pay market fee.

During the present proceedings, the petitioner produced a register relating to his hulling work for 2002–03, which referred to bills; the respondents sought production of those bills.

1. Whether the Director’s order holding the petitioner liable for market fee should stand when the petitioner sought to rely on records relevant to whether he traded in regulated produce.

2. Whether the petitioner’s liability to pay market fee could be determined without first considering the relevant records and the observations in the earlier proceedings.

Section 132(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966, was the statutory basis for the Director’s reconsideration following the earlier remand; the Co-ordinate Bench had directed the Director to pass an order under that provision after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing.

The earlier proceedings also concerned Section 83A of the Act, but the present order does not determine the scope of that provision or the petitioner’s ultimate liability.

The Court directed that reconsideration be undertaken in accordance with law and in light of the observations in the earlier proceedings.

Although the petitioner had participated in the earlier enquiry, the Court noted that he had not furnished documents to establish that he was only a customary huller and did not deal in paddy or rice.

The register later produced before the Court referred to bills, and the respondents submitted that those records should be produced so the petitioner’s status and any market-fee liability could be properly assessed.

The Court therefore set aside the Director’s order and directed reconsideration after the petitioner produced the relevant bills and was heard; it did not decide whether he was a trader or liable to pay market fee.

The petitioner was directed to appear before the Director on 26 October 2026 at 11:00 a.m. with the bills referred to in the register.

The Director was directed to take necessary steps in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner and considering the earlier proceedings, within three months of receiving the documents.