1996 (10) TMI 529 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Requirement of obtaining licenses under Section 4(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1949.
2. Imposition and validity of market levy under the Markets Act.
3. Alleged violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.
4. Quid pro quo in the context of market fee.
5. Applicability of single point levy under Rule 81 of the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1971.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement of Obtaining Licenses Under Section 4(3) of the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1949:

The appellants argued that they were not required to obtain licenses under Section 4(3) of the Markets Act as they conducted their business outside the principal market or sub-market yards. The respondents countered that the appellants were operating within the notified market area, thereby necessitating licenses. The court upheld the requirement for licenses, stating that any trader or dealer dealing in scheduled agricultural produce within a notified market area is obligated to obtain a license under Section 4(3) of the Markets Act.

2. Imposition and Validity of Market Levy Under the Markets Act:

The appellants contended that the market levy was unconstitutional as it imposed unreasonable restrictions on their trade. The respondents argued that the levy was justified as it funded the development of market yards and public utilities. The court upheld the levy, stating that the imposition of market fees constituted a reasonable restriction under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court referenced previous decisions, including Kewal Krishna Puri v. State of Punjab and Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar v. State of U.P., to affirm that the levy was justified by the services provided by the market committee.

3. Alleged Violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India:

The appellants argued that Sections 4(3) and 21 of the Markets Act violated their right to trade freely under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The court held that these provisions were intra vires and valid, constituting reasonable restrictions on the right to trade. The court emphasized that the levy had a direct relationship with the services rendered by the market committee, thereby justifying the imposition.

4. Quid Pro Quo in the Context of Market Fee:

The appellants argued that the market fee lacked a direct relationship with the services rendered by the market committee. The court reiterated that while mathematical precision in quid pro quo is not required, a reasonable relationship between the levy and the services rendered must exist. The court found that the market committee had taken effective steps to establish market yards and provide amenities, thereby justifying the levy.

5. Applicability of Single Point Levy Under Rule 81 of the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1971:

The appellants contended that they should not be subject to the market fee as they purchased agricultural produce from other dealers who had already paid the levy. The court held that the requirement to obtain a license is mandatory under Section 4(3) of the Markets Act, and the validity of the levy must be determined based on actual business activities. The court emphasized that the appellant must establish any claim for exemption from the levy with reference to records, and the obligation to obtain a license remains irrespective of the single point levy.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the validity of the market levy and the requirement for licenses under the Markets Act. The court found no violation of Article 19(1)(g) and emphasized the reasonable relationship between the levy and the services rendered by the market committee. The appeal was dismissed with costs assessed at rupees ten thousand.