Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who are traders in agricultural produce and licence holders within the market area of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), Taluka Palghar, challenged a show cause notice issued by the APMC demanding payment of certain fees. The petitioners contended that they were not liable to pay the fees, which they claimed were for services such as toilet blocks, shelter, covered varanthas, roads, and other facilities. The main contention was that the fees were not for services rendered to them individually. The court considered the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, particularly Section 27 which empowers the market committee to levy fees. The court held that the fee is a fee for services rendered and is validly levied. The court found no merit in the petitioners' challenge and dismissed the writ petition, upholding the show cause notice.
Headnote
A) Agricultural Marketing - Market Fee - Levy of Fee - Section 27 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 - The petitioners, licence holders, challenged a show cause notice demanding payment of fees for services like toilet block, shelter, covered varanthas, roads, etc. - The court held that the fee is for services rendered and is validly levied under the Act - The notice was upheld and the petition dismissed (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the show cause notice demanding payment of market fees from the petitioners is valid, and whether the petitioners are liable to pay such fees.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The show cause notice is upheld.
Law Points
- Market fee is a fee for services rendered
- not a tax
- levy of fee under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act
- 1963 is valid
- no requirement of specific service to each licensee
- fee can be used for general market development.
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (02) 341
Writ Petition No. 2370 of 2002
V.G. Palshikar, Smt. Nishita Mhatre
Shri V.A. Gangal Sr. adv. with Shri Ulhas Naik for the petitioner, Shri K.N. Kore for Respondents 1 and 2, Shri S.R. Nargolkar AGP for State - Respondents 3 to 5
Himmat C. Jani, Poonamchand H. Jain, Mithalal R. Jain, Bhagwanlal C. Jain, The Palghar Taluka Wholesale Grains Dealers Association
The Agricultural Market Produce Committee, Taluka Palghar, Chandrakant D. Patil, The State of Maharashtra, The District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Palghar, The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Palghar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging a show cause notice demanding payment of market fees.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the show cause notice and declaration that petitioners are not liable to pay the fees.
Filing Reason
Petitioners, being licence holders, were served with a show cause notice demanding payment of fees which they contended they were not liable to pay.
Issues
Whether the show cause notice demanding payment of market fees is valid.
Whether the petitioners are liable to pay the fees levied by the APMC.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they are licence holders and have a right to trade, and the fees demanded are for services like toilet block, shelter, covered varanthas, roads, etc., which they are not liable to pay.
Respondents argued that the fees are validly levied under the Act and are for services rendered.
Ratio Decidendi
The fee levied under Section 27 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 is a fee for services rendered and is valid. The petitioners, as licence holders, are liable to pay the fee.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, the petitioners who are traders in agricultural produce within the Market Committee of the respondent no.1, have challenged the show cause notice issued by the A.P.M.C. to the petitioners, demanding from them payment of certain fees, which according to the petitioners, they are not liable to pay.
The main contention raised in this petition is that the petitioners are licence holders on the basis of which they have a right to trade within the permission of A.P.M.C. The A.P.M.C. has levied certain fees for recovery of which the impugned notice is sent.
This fees, according to the petitioners, is obviously the fees charged for services rendered like toilet block, shelter or covered varanthas for effecting sale etc. roads and other necessary.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay challenging a show cause notice issued by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Taluka Palghar, demanding payment of fees. The court heard the matter and delivered judgment on 1st February 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963: Section 27
