# Court i. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Hardwar v. Indian Food

- **Citation:** (1999) 3 ILRA 4
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/court-i-krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-hardwar-v-indian-food-39401
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

4 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( /$.6+0, %,+$5, -
7+( +21·%/( /$.6+0, %,+$5, -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

0V .ULVKQD 5LFH DQG 'DO 0LOOV DQG DQRWKHU
« 3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
8QLRQ RI ,QGLD DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
 6KUL &. 3DUHNK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV 6KUL %'0DGK\DQ
6KUL +5 0LVKUD
OHDUQHG 6WDQGLQJ &RXQVHO
6KUL 6 3 *DXWDP
6KUL *& %KDWDFKDU\D
6KUL 6. 6ULYDVWDYD

0DQGL $GKLQL\DP 6 LLL$ UHDGZLWK ± &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI
,QGLD $UWLFOH /LDELOLW\ WR SD\ WKH PDUNHW IHHVDJULFXOWXUDO
SURGXFH VROG E\ WKH 7UDGHU WR WKH 6WDWH *RYHUQPHQW ZKHWKHU WKH
WUDGHU RU WKH SXUFKDVHU LV OLDEOH WR SD\ WKH PDUNHW IHH"KHOGWKH
OLDELOLW\ VKLIWHG XSRQ WKH WUDGHU WR SD\ WKH PDUNHG IHHLI VR FKRRVHV
KH FDQ SDVV WKH EXUGHQ XSRQ WKH SXUFKDVHU 3DUD

By the Court

 1. The moot question urged by Sri Parikh is as to whether
when an agriculture produce is sold by the trader to the State
Government, the market fee payable to the committee constituted
under the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 has to be paid the
seller-petitioner or the purchaser State Respondent no.2.

2. Shri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel appearing in support of
this writ petition with reference to a Division Bench decision of our
own High Court in Shri Vijay Rice Mills Rudrapur Vs. State of
U.p.1998 (33) A.L.R. 684 contended that this writ petition be
disposed of in the same manner as it was done in Vijay Rice Mills
(supra).

1999
------
August, 18
3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
5
3. Shri B. D. Madhyan, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of Respondent no.6,on the other hand, contended that the question
raised by the petitioner now stands authoritatively concluded by two
Division Bench judgements rendered by three Judges of the Supreme
Court i. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Hardwar Vs. Indian Food
products Ltd. and others, disposed of by judgement and order dated
July 19,1999, and thus accordingly following the ratio laid down
therein this writ petition be dismissed.

4. In our view the question urged on behalf of the petition
stands answered authortatively by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Bareilly supra the relevant part of
which reads thus :-

 " The precise question, which we have noticed above came up
for considered by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Mahalaxmi
Rice Mills & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.(1998) 6 SCC 590,
wherein it was held that the Market Committee was entitled to
collect the market fee from the seller and it is for the seller to pass
the burden on the purchaser, if he so chooses. The Bench went on to
say that the respondents cannot shirk the responsibility to pay the
market fee to the Market Committee when the transaction falls
within the purview of sub-clause 3 of Section 17 (iii) (b) of the Act
and that it would open to them to receive the same from the
purchaser - Government.

The judgement of the three Judge Bench (supra) has answered
the precise question. We are not persuaded to take a different view.
We may, at this stage, also point out that the judgement relied upon
by the High Court in the case of India Wood Products Ltd.(supra)
was considered by the three Judge Bench in Mahalaxmi Rice Mills
case (supra)and not approved.

Since the matter is covered by the judgement in Mahalaxmi
Rice Mills case (supra) following that judgement, we allow these
appeals and set aside the impugned orders. Consequently, the writ
petitions filed in the High Court shall stand dismissed."

5. Following the ratio laid down before mentioned we, too,
dismiss writ petition. In the peculiar facts and circumstances,
however, we make no order as to cost.

1999
------
M/S Krishna Rice
& Dal Mills &
another
 Vs.
U.O.I. & others
------
B.K. Roy, J.
Lakshmi
Bihari,J.
6 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
6. A copy of this order shall be handed over within one week
to Shri H.R.Mishra, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for
Respondent No.2 for its communication to the authority concerned.

Petition Dismissed.
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( -& *837$ -
7+( +21·%/( -& *837$ -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

&KDXGKU\ 5DP
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH ,,,UG $GGO 'LVWULFW -XGJH
6DKDUDQSXU 2WKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 3XVKNDU 0HKURWUD
6KUL 5DYL .LUDQ -DLQ
&RXQVHO IRU 7KH UHVSRQGHQWV 6&
6KUL 5DMHVK 7DQGRQ

83 $FW 1R RI 6HF D UHDG ZLWK 5XOH
5HOHDVH $SSOLFDWLRQ %RQDILHG QHHG WR VHWWOH WKH EXVLQHVV RI
XQHPSOR\HG VRQ ± 7HQDQW¶V REMHFWLRQ UHJDUGLQJ QHHG RI ODQG ORUG
FDQ EH PHHW RXW E\ VWDUWLQJ WKH EXVLQHVV LQ KLV UHVLGHQWLDO EXLOGLQJ
LWVHOI KHOG LQ WKH H\H RI ODZ WKH ODQG /RUG FDQ QRW EH FRPSHOOHG WR
FRQYHUW WKH UHVLGHQWLDO DFFRPPRGDWLRQ LQ WR FRPPHUFLDO RQH
SDUWLFXODUO\ ZKHQ WKH WHQDQW SRVVHVVLQJ KLV EXLOGLQJ IRU EXVLQHVV
SXUSRVH
+HOG
,W LV ZHOO HVWDEOLVKHG SULQFLSDO WKDW HYHU\ ODQG ORUG SRVVHVVHV D
ULJKW WR OLYH FRPIRUWDEO\ LQ KLV UHVLGHQWLDO KRXVH DQG WKHUHIRUH KH
FDQQRW EH IRUFHG WR FRQYHUW DQ\ SRUWLRQ RI KLV UHVLGHQWLDO SXUSRVH
DV
WKDW
ZRXOG
QRW
RQO\
UHGXFH
WKH
H[WHQW
RI
UHVLGHQWLDO
DFFRPPRGDWLRQ EXW PD\ DOVR UHVXOW LQ GLVWXUEDQFH RI KLV SHDFHIXO
OLYLQJ LQ WKH VDLG KRXVH DQG WKH VDPH ZLOO EH FRQWUDU\ WR WKH SROLF\
XQGHUO\LQJ WKH SURYLVLRQV FRQWDLQHG LQ VHFWLRQ RI WKH $FW
+HOG
83 $FW 1R RI ± 83 8UEDQ %XLOGLQJ 5HJXODWLRQ RI OHWWLQJ
DQG 5HQW &RQWURO 5XOH ±U E &RPSDUDWLYH KDUGVKLS
7HQDQW DOUHDG\ FRQVWUXFWHG DQG VKLIWHG KLV EXVLQHVV DW QHZ SODFH ±
/DQG /RUG¶V QHHG LV JUHDWHU
+HOG
1999
------
July, 22