2012 (3) TMI 712 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the High Court's order setting aside the assessment of market fee by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Ghaziabad.
2. Requirement of gate passes for the removal of goods from the market area.
3. Rebuttal of the presumption under Section 17 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964.
4. High Court's criticism of the capacity of the officers of the Mandi Samiti and Deputy Director.
5. High Court's introduction of a new procedure for assessment of market fee.

Summary:

1. Validity of the High Court's Order:
This appeal challenges the High Court's order which allowed the Respondent-company's writ petition, setting aside the orders of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Ghaziabad, and the Deputy Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Meerut. The High Court directed a fresh assessment of the market fee after providing an opportunity of being heard to the Respondent-company.

2. Requirement of Gate Passes:
The Respondent-company argued that the transfer of stocks to its go-downs outside the mandi area was on a "stock transfer basis" and not a sale within the mandi area. The Mandi Samiti, however, held that obtaining gate passes was necessary and levied a market fee and development fee for the goods taken out from the market area u/s 17(iii)(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964.

3. Rebuttal of Presumption u/s 17:
The Mandi Samiti and the Deputy Director held that the Respondent-company had not adduced sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that the movement of goods was pursuant to a sale within the mandi area. The High Court, however, found the approach of the Samiti and the Deputy Director biased and arbitrary.

4. High Court's Criticism of Officers' Capacity:
The High Court criticized the capacity of the officers of the Mandi Samiti and the Deputy Director, stating that they were not equipped with the requisite knowledge about the legal principles and procedures. The Supreme Court found this criticism unjustified, stating that the High Court should have pointed out specific errors in the appreciation of law or facts.

5. High Court's New Procedure:
The High Court introduced a new procedure for the assessment of market fee, including the provision of a "revolving bank guarantee" by the Respondent-company. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have adhered to the procedures established by the Supreme Court in previous cases (Shree Mahalaxmi Sugar Works and M/s Saraswati Cane Crusher) and left any modifications to the Supreme Court.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and restored the orders of the Mandi Samiti and the Deputy Director. The Supreme Court emphasized adherence to established procedures and found no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Samiti and the Deputy Director.