1. The petitioner herein has approached this court praying for quashing and setting aside the public notice dated 15.12.2011 and to further declare the action of the respondent no. 1 in insisting the members of the petitioner association to obtain licence of the respondent no. 1 under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as being illegal and arbitrary.
2. It is the case of the petitioner association that the members of the petitioner association are involved in the business of selling processed goods such as rice, wheat, semolina, refined flour, pulses etc. On 18.11.2009, the respondent no. 1 committee informed the Ahmedabad Wholesale Grain Merchant Association to get the licence of respondent no. 1.
3. Ms.
Sangeeta Pahwa, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that if the notification dated 24.01.1992 and 24.02.2006 are perused, it is clear that the locality mentioned in the said notifications is not in the area in which the petitioner association is doing its business. She submitted that though Kalupur Chokha Bazar is not declared as market area, the respondent no. 1 without there being any notification for the same is insisting to obtain licence under the Act 3.1 Ms.
Pahwa further submitted that even otherwise the members of the petitioner association are purchasing the goods on which the fees/cess under the Act is already paid by the Mills while purchasing the raw goods from the market area and therefore the members of the petitioner association who are selling the processed agricultural produce on which the cess/fees under the Act is already paid are not required to pay further.
4. Having heard learned advocates for both the side and having perused the papers on record, this court is of the view that the contentions advanced by learned advocate for the petitioner cannot be accepted. As far as the contention regarding market area is concerned, it shall be relevant to peruse Section 5 of the Act which reads as under:
"Section 5 : Declaration of intention of regulating purchase and sale of agricultural produce in specified area"
The Director may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare his intention of regulating the purchase and sale of such agricultural produce and in such area, as may be specified therein. Such notification shall also be published in Gujarati in a newspaper having circulation in the area and in such other manner as may be prescribed.
Such notification shall state that any objection or suggestion received by the Director within the period specified in the notification which shall not be less than one month from the date of the publication of the notification, shall be considered by the Director.
The Director shall also send a copy of the notification to each of the local authorities functioning in the area specified in the notification with a request to submit its objections and suggestions, if any, in writing to the Director within the period specified in the notification."
5. Considering the provisions laid down in Section 5 of the Act coupled with the gazette notification dated 09.03.2006, it is clear that the market area of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ahmedabad is the Municipal Corporation limit Taluka city and Taluka Daskroi, Ahmedabad which is considered as market area. In that view of the matter, the fact that the members of the petitioner association are covered under the municipal limits is not in dispute. Therefore the contention regarding market area is misconceived inasmuch as Kalupur is within the municipal limits of Ahmedabad city and accordingly as per the gazette notification the same shall be part of the market area under the Act.
5.1 As regards the contention qua fee/cess already paid by the mill owners, even the same may not be accepted as the fee/cess paid by the members of the petitioner is a fee for the service of the committee to the agriculturists and it cannot be termed as a tax. Apart from that every market committee is entitled to market fee in each market area. Therefore for the transactions done by the members with the traders the question of double fee cannot emerge. Even under the rule 48 of the Act, for the same transaction market fee is payable again after 15 days. Hence, this petition is devoid of any merits and therefore deserves to be dismissed.
6. In the premises aforesaid petition stands dismissed. Notice is discharged.
(K.S.
JHAVERI, J.) Divya// Top