9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (2) TMI 207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ittee had no right to levy, demand and collect any market fee from the members of the plaintiff-association. An injunction was also sought to restrain the defendant-Committee from collecting market fee from the members of the plaintiff-Association. The case set up by the plaintiff as per the plaint was that Rajam Sub-taluk was under the jurisdiction of the Ponduru Agricultural Market Committee. On Rajam Sub-taluk being upgraded as a taluk, a separate Agricultural Market Committee was constituted for the Rajam taluk with effect from December 24, 1979. The market committee was constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural (Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The primary object of the Act is to establish a market within a notified area. The market committees which are constituted under the Act have to provide facilities like sheds, storage, accommodation, platforms, facilities for weighing ad grading of the agricultural produce, etc. The committee has also to engage staff to supervise operations of the traders in the market area. The market committee is to ensure that transactions in the specified commodities are for the benefit of pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ment of the market fee, yet it was submitted that the plaintiff could have agitated the question of levy of market fee in the said petition and since it failed to do so, the principle of constructive res judicata would come into play. It would be deemed that the point which was available to the plaintiff-association for being raised at that stage, was given up. The said question therefore, could not be agitated in the present suit. The learned counsel for the plaintiff did not have any convincing reply to this argument. However, while going through the record, we find that the earlier writ petition being W.P. No. 1184 of 1978 was filed when Rajam was under the erstwhile Ponduru Agricultural Market Committee. It is possible that the argument regarding non- availability of facilities and amenities in the market area was not available then because Ponduru Agricultural Market Committee which had jurisdiction over Rajam Sub-taluk, might have been in existence since long and the requisite facilities in the notified market area were possibly available. Since there is no material on record, in this connection, we are not inclined to non-suit the plaintiff on this ground. The only questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ea at such rate, not exceeding two rupees as may be specified in the bye-laws for every hundred rupees of the aggregate amount for which the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock is purchased or sold, whether for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration." Section 14(1) provides for market committee fund: "All moneys received by a market committee shall be paid into a fund to be called 'The Market Committee Fund' and the said fund shall be deposited, in a single banking account with the nearest Government treasury, or with the sanction of the Government, in a Bank. All expenditure incurred by the market committee under or for the purpose of this Act shall be defrayed out of the said fund; and any surplus remaining after such expenditure shall be invested in such manner as may be prescribed." Section 15 enumerates the purposes for which the market committee funds may be expended which are as under: "Section 15: Subject to the provisions of section 14, the market committee fund shall be expended for all or any of the following purposes, namely: (i) the acquisition of site for the market; (ii) the establishment, maintenance and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s dated May 25, 1982 and December 8, 1982 issued by the market committee to the members of the plaintiff- association demanding market fee from the members. As already noted, the trial court accepted the case set up by the plaintiff. However, on appeal the learned District Judge, Srikakulam, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-association vide his judgment dated October 9, 1990. The plaintiff preferred a Second Appeal against the judgment of the District Judge. The High Court vide its impugned judgment dated February 20, 1992 accepted the appeal and decreed the suit of the plaintiff upholding the allegation of the plaintiff that the market committee had failed to provide necessary services and amenities in the notified market area and therefore it was not entitled to levy and collect the market fee. 6.. So far as the factual aspect of availability of facilities and amenities in the market is concerned, the plaintiff did not lead any evidence at all. We are left with only the averments in the plaint about the absence of facilities and amenities in the notified market area. There is nothing on record to support the plaint averments. On the other hand, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rea and this entitled the committee to levy market fee in terms of section 12 of the Act. The learned District Judge noted from the evidence of DW 1 that no suggestion had been put to him in the cross-examination that by 1982 the market yard was not having all the basic amenities. According to the learned District Judge, it was clear from the evidence of the said witness that amenities were being provided in the notified market area and the construction of building was in progress. Another fact which emerged from the evidence of DW 1 was that market committee was giving loans to the growers or ryots by way of cash, loans or by way of supply of manures on credit. Thus the market committee was discharging its functions. 8.. The question is whether the market committee was not entitled to levy, demand and collect market fee till all the facilities and amenities are fully and completely in place. The facilities already provided for in the notified market area in the present case have been enumerated hereinbefore. What remains to be considered is the extent to which services, facilities and amenities ought to be available in the market area before the market fee can be levied. 9.. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ought not be notified as a market unless it is ready for use as a market with all reasonable facilities and conveniences. A view was expressed that a notification may be quashed if nothing had been done beyond publishing a notification. In cases where some facilities and conveniences have been provided for while some other remain to be provided, the court may instead of quashing the notification give appropriate time-bound directions for providing necessary facilities and conveniences. The present is not a case of total absence of facilities and amenities in the market area. It has come in evidence that steps are being taken to improve and extend the services and the work was actually in progress in that behalf. In fact there is an admission on the part of the plaintiffs-Association that after all the facilities were provided in the market they had started paying the market fee as levied by the market committee. This is an admission of the fact that the steps for providing all the requisite facilities which were on when the suit was filed, came to be completed during the pendency of the suit. Therefore, so far as the present case is concerned, the challenge to levy and collection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly be benefited by it. The power of any Legislature to levy a fee is conditioned by the fact that it must be 'by and large' a quid pro quo for the services rendered. However, correlationship between the levy and the services rendered (sic or) expected is one of general character and not of mathematical exactitude. All that is necessary is that there should be a 'reasonable relationship' between the levy of the fee and the services rendered." While dealing with the question of difference between a tax and a fee, the court observed: "There is no generic difference between a tax and a fee. Both are compulsory exactions of money by public authorities. Compulsion lies in the fact that payment is enforceable by law against a person in spite of his unwillingness or want of consent. A levy in the nature of a fee does not cease to be of that character merely because there is an element of compulsion or coerciveness present in it, nor is it a postulate of a fee that it must have direct relation to the actual service rendered by the authority to each individual who obtains the benefit of the service. It is now increasingly realised that merely because the collections for the services rende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y a general or special order. Chapter V provides for various regulatory measures in rules 54 to 73 for the control of a market in that correct weighments would be secured, storage facilities provided and equal powers of bargaining assured so that the growers may bring their agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock to the market and sell them at a reasonable price. There was not a whisper during the course of the arguments that the market committees were not providing the services as enjoined by rules 54 to 73." Another important aspect dealt with in this case is about when the services are to be completed. The following observations are pertinent: "It will be noticed that these facilities are to be provided by the market committees in course of time 'as and when funds permit'. It is needless to stress that the question of providing these facilities would depend on the financial capacity of each market committee. That would depend on whether there are sufficient funds available at its disposal in the market committee fund." The observations noted above in Sreenivasa's case (1983) 4 SCC 353, have simplified our task to a great extent. It follows that while quid pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notified market area and efforts were being made for extending the services. The market committee had recently come into existence and completion of all the intended services and facilities takes time. It has clearly emerged from the evidence of DW 1 that steps were being taken for extending the services and facilities in the market area. The plaintiff has led no evidence to contradict the defendant's evidence. Whether particular services and amenities are available at a given place and the extent thereof are questions of fact which require to be proved or demolished on basis of evidence to be led by the parties concerned. Since the plaintiff has not led any evidence whether oral or documentary in support of its case, the court is left with no option but to accept the evidence of defendant which shows that some services and facilities in the notified market area were already available while arrangements were being made for various other facilities and services. The foundation for the case set up by the plaintiff is not available on record. The law is well-settled that though quid pro quo is required in relation to a fee which is charged and collected by a market committee, the qui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
