(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1 We have heard Ms. Kruti M. Shah, learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGP Ms. Jigar Jhavery, learned AGP for respondent No.1.
2 This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the Order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.12.2011 passed in Special Civil Application No.17882 of 2011. The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the respondents are not renewing the Licence of the appellant issued under the Agricultural Produce Market Committee Act for the year 2011-2012 on the ground that an amount of Rs. 33820/- plus delayed payment of interest is due against the appellant and unless the said amount is deposited along with interest, the licence of the appellant for the year 2011-2012 cannot be renewed. Learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that an application has been filed before the respondent No.2 which may be treated as an appeal.
3. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if the appellant wants to file an appeal challenging the levy of market fee, the appellant can file a proper appeal and the application filed by the appellant cannot be treated as an Appeal. The appellant may deposit the levy of market fee along with interest as demanded by the respondents under protest without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the appeal and it would be subject to the final decision on the appeal or any order passed by any higher authority. On depositing of the amount of Rs. 33820/- plus delayed payment of interest, the Licence of the appellant for the year 2011-2012 shall be renewed by the respondents. The liberty is granted to the appellant to file an appeal challenging the order of levy of market fee.
4 With the aforesaid directions, this Appeal stands finally disposed of accordingly.
5 In view of the aforesaid order passed in the Appeal, the Civil Application No.314 of 2012 does not survive and stands disposed of according.
6 Direct Service is permitted.
(V.M.
SAHAI, J.) (A.J.DESAI, J.) pnnair Top