Dismissed

Vishwanath Gamaji Meher and 2 Ors. v. the Agricultural Produce Market Committee and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Jul 2006WP/711/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay rejected a writ petition challenging the recovery of supervision charges and licence fees by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The court held that a licence and fees are mandatory under the Act for activities within the market area. It also stated that supervision charges can only be recovered by the State Government, not the Committee, temporarily.

What did the court decide?

The petition was rejected. The Market Committee cannot charge supervision charges until a Supreme Court/Division Bench view to contrary is reported. The notification including banana in the schedule w

Vishwanath Gamaji Meher and 2 Ors. Vs the Agricultural… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO. 711 OF 2006

¶4

 Vishwanath Gamaji Meher and Ors. ... Petitioner

¶5

 Versus

¶6

 The Agricultural Produce Market
 Committee and anr. ... Respondents

¶7

 Mr. M.M. Vashi and Mr. Shetty i/by M.P. Vashi &
 Associates for Petitioners.

¶8

 Mr. R.J. Mane for R. No. 2.

¶9

 Mr.N.N. Bhadrashetye for R. No. 1.

¶10

CORAM: F.I.REBELLO&
MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ.
DATE : 06TH JULY, 2006
 P.C.:

¶11

 . The Petitioner has approached this Court

¶12

 contending that it is not open to the respondent No.

¶13

 1 to recover supervision charges and demand to pay
 licence fees etc. There is also challenge to the
 notification dated 9.2.2004. By that notification,
 the Government has included Banana in the schedule.

¶14

 We have heard the learned counsel for the
 Petitioners and Respondents. Reply has been filed
 in this case.

¶15

 . Admittedly, Respondent No. 2 has issued

¶16

 notification declaring market area as contemplated

¶17

 by Section 4 read with section 2(i) of the
 Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing

¶18

¶19

 Regulation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as

¶20

 "Act"). By the virtue of Section 6, once there is
 market area any person dealing in any commodity
 included in in the schedule has to obtain the
 licence. By virtue of Section 31, the Purchaser of
 agricultural produce market in the market area, has
 to pay fee as levied by the market committee. It is
 the case of the Petitioner that in the absence of
 market, it is not open to the Respondent No. 2 to
 either charge licence fees or market fees.

¶21

 . In our opinion, the argument is misplaced.
 Section 2(a) defines the market to mean the
 principal market for the purpose of the Act as also
 subsidiary market. The expression market and market
 area have two different annotations. One refers to
 the larger area wherein activities are to be carried
 out and the other a specified area A Conjoint
 reading of section 6 and section 31 makes it clear
 that any person desirous of carrying out any
 activity in respect of the item included in schedule
 has to obtain licence. Without licence, it is not
 open to such purchaser to carry on the activities.
 Similarly, the purchaser has to pay the market fees
 as contemplated by section 31.

¶22

 . On behalf of Respondent No. 1, the learned
 counsel points out that in so far as supervision

¶23

¶24

 charges are concerned, the learned Division Bench of

¶25

 this Court has now taken a view under Section 34A of
 the Act that the supervision charges can only be
 recovered by the State Government, in respect of the
 supervisors appointed by the Government. For the
 moment, we are not deciding that controversy. As on
 today, it will not be open to the Respondent No. 2
 to charge supervision charges. If the supervision
 charges are still insisted, it will be open to the
 Petitioner to take such steps in law to which he is
 entitled to. As long as the judgment of this court
 is in force and as long as the provisions of the Act
 remains the same, it will not be open to Respondent
 No. 1 to charge supervision charges.

¶26

 . Apart from supervision charges, the Respondent
 No. 1 is not charging from the person like
 petitioners any other charges.

¶27

 . The only other question is whether it is open for
 this court to strike down the notification which
 included Banana in the schedule. We find from the
 pleadings and record that banana was earlier
 included in the schedule. That appears to have been
 subsequently excluded by the government. It appears
 that some petitions were filed before Aurangabad
 Bench of this court and the notification of the
 Government was stayed. Thereafter once again, the

¶28

¶29

 Government introduced banana in the schedule. There

¶30

 is power in the Government to include the fruit in

¶31

 the schedule and once there is power and as long as
 the product falls within the expression fruit, the
 challenge as made by the Petitioner is devoid of any
 merit.

¶32

 . For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in
 the petition which is accordingly rejected.

¶33

(MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)(F.I.REBELLO,J.)

Vishwanath Gamaji Meher and 2 Ors. v. the Agricultural Produce Market Committee and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwanath Gamaji Meher and 2 Ors. v. the Agricultural Produce Market Committee and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Mubarakbee Sultan Ahmed Vs Municipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and Ors.

Drishti Adventure Sports Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Commissioner of Police and Anr.

Prakash H. Dugad Vs Muncipal Corpn. of Gr. Mumbai and Ors.

Lekhraj Jassumal Jethani Vs D. R. Mali and 3 Ors.

Shankar Sharma and Anr. Vs Securities and Exchange Board of India

Aspandiar Rashid Irani and Anr. Vs P. L. Salve and Anr.