Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by the Maharashtra State Market Committee Co-operative Federation Ltd., representing over 290 Agricultural Produce Market Committees, challenging clause B(ii) of Chapter II of the Guidelines for Price Support Scheme (PSS) issued by the Union of India. The clause mandated that State Governments exempt all state duties in respect of PSS operations and provided that any such taxes charged would not be reimbursed. The petitioner contended that this clause was ultra vires and illegally deprived Market Committees of the market fees payable under Section 31 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 for services rendered at procurement centres operated within market areas. According to the petitioner, the Market Committees provided essential facilities such as space, storage, weighing, electricity, water, and manpower at the request of the respondents, and until the financial year 2016-17, market fees were duly paid. However, from 2017-18 onwards, respondent No.4 NAFED and other agencies stopped paying market fees, citing the exemption clause. Despite repeated demands, no payment was made, leading to the filing of the petition. The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned clause, a declaration that Market Committees are entitled to market fees on PSS purchases, and a direction to NAFED to pay the arrears. Respondent No.4 NAFED, a Central Nodal Agency under the scheme, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ, arguing that NAFED is not 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution, relying on precedent. It also contended that procurement under PSS is exempt from mandi tax and that the State of Maharashtra had already issued a notification on 9 September 2019 exempting all State duties and taxes for PSS operations. Respondent No.5, the State Co-operative Marketing Federation, supported the non-payment, arguing that the exemption was valid and the petition was not maintainable. The Court heard the arguments from all parties and reserved judgment on 29 April 2021. The final order pronounced on 8 June 2021 is not included in the extracted text.
Headnote
A) Agricultural Marketing – Market Fees – Entitlement under Section 31, Maharashtra APMC Act – The petitioner federation of Market Committees argued that Section 31 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 entitles Market Committees to fees for services provided to both seller and purchaser without distinction between private and nodal agency purchasers; the exemption under PSS Guidelines defeats this statutory right. The respondents contended that the State had exempted all duties and taxes for PSS operations. The matter was heard and judgment reserved; final determination not included in extracted text. (Paras 8-9, 13-14) B) Constitutional Law – Writ Jurisdiction – Maintainability against NAFED – A preliminary objection was raised that respondent No.4 NAFED, a cooperative federation, is not 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution and thus not amenable to writ jurisdiction, relying on National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation of India Ltd. v. Nafed Processed Food Cooperative Marketing Federation of India Employees Union. The petitioner argued NAFED performs governmental functions under PSS. The issue of maintainability was considered by the Court; final view not stated in available text. (Paras 12, 15) C) Interpretation of Guidelines – Price Support Scheme – Clause B(ii) Exemption – Clause B(ii) of Chapter II of PSS Guidelines provides that State Governments shall exempt all state duties in respect of PSS operations and that taxes charged shall not be reimbursed. The petitioner challenged this clause as prejudicial and beyond the scope of executive guidelines issued by the Union Government. The respondents justified the clause as necessary to reduce procurement cost and benefit farmers. The interplay between the guideline and the State legislation was a core issue. (Paras 8, 13-14) D) Statutory Interpretation – Repugnancy – PSS Guidelines and State Law – The case involves the question whether an executive guideline framed under a Central scheme can override a state levy imposed by a statute. While the petitioner asserted that the APMC Act does not exempt Central agencies, the respondents contended that the State’s own notification exempting duties must be honored. This central legal question was argued, and judgment was reserved. (Paras 8, 13-14)
Issue of Consideration
Whether clause B(ii) of Chapter II of the Price Support Scheme (PSS) Guidelines is ultra vires and invalid, and whether Market Committees under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 are entitled to market fees on purchases of agricultural commodities made under PSS by central and state agencies.
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Market fees under Section 31 of Maharashtra APMC Act are statutory levies
- PSS Guidelines cannot override State legislation
- entitlement to fees for services rendered
- exemption clause B(ii) of Chapter II of PSS Guidelines requires State to exempt all duties
- writ maintainability against NAFED as 'State' under Article 12
