Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from writ petitions filed by traders challenging levy of market fee by Mandi Samitis on the ground that no services were rendered. The High Court had allowed the writ petitions and remitted the matter to the Mandi Samitis to adjudicate the claim that no market fee is chargeable because no service is rendered. The Mandi Samitis in their counter affidavits claimed they were rendering services such as arrangement for electric light, water, scavenging, other amenities in market yards, provision of tents, urinals, culverts, and construction of link roads. They also disclosed future infrastructure like acquisition of land for construction of market yards, market complexes consisting of godowns, post-offices, banks, warehouses, shelters and rest-houses. The traders contended that no such facilities had been provided and none were expected. The High Court, by common judgment, remitted the matter back to the Mandi Samitis to adjudicate this factual dispute. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's approach was erroneous. It referred to M.C.D. v. Mohd. Yasin and City Corporation of Calicut v. Thachambalath Sadasivan. The court reiterated that a fee must have relation to services rendered, but such relation need not be direct; a mere casual relation may be enough. The incidence of the fee need not be uniform, and others besides fee payers may also benefit. The court is not to assume the role of a cost accountant. The element of quid pro quo in its strict sense is not always a sine qua non for a fee. The court found that the Mandi Samitis do render services, and it is not necessary to show that the fee collected has been spent penny by penny for the benefit of fee payers. The High Court should have itself examined the authenticity of the services or accepted the word of the Samitis, rather than remitting the matter, which would open flood-gates of never-ending disputes. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court, and dismissed the writ petitions filed by the respondents, without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Market Fee - Quid Pro Quo Requirement - Fee need not have strict equivalence; broad co-relationship sufficient - Not mentioned - The Supreme Court held that a fee must have relation to services rendered, but such relation need not be direct; a mere casual relation may be enough. The element of quid pro quo in its strict sense is not always a sine qua non for a fee. The court found that Mandi Samitis render services and it is not necessary to show penny-by-penny expenditure. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Writ Jurisdiction - Remand to Statutory Authority - High Court should not remit to authority that is judge in its own cause - Not mentioned - The High Court had remitted the matter to Mandi Samitis to adjudicate own claim of services rendered. Supreme Court held that this placed the Samitis as judges in their own cause and would open flood-gates of disputes. The High Court should have examined the issue itself or accepted the word of the Samitis. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether market fee is chargeable when no services are rendered; whether High Court was justified in remitting the matter to Mandi Samitis to adjudicate the claim of services; whether strict quid pro quo is required for a fee.
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside; writ petitions dismissed; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Fee need not have strict equivalence with services rendered
- broad co-relationship sufficient
- quid pro quo not a sine qua non
- judicial review should not remit to fee-levying authority to adjudicate its own claim of services.
