# M/s Atul Rahul Agro Pvt. Ltd v. Director Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Kisan Mandi Lko. & Anr

- **Citation:** Misc. Single No. 1787 of 2020
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-23
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 1787 of 2020
- **Bench:** Rakesh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-atul-rahul-agro-pvt-ltd-v-director-krishi-utpadan-mandi-parishad-kisan-46298
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law-Two trucks seized transporting
35o
quintals
rice-Petitioner
filed
an
appication for compounding the offenceoffence compounded subject to payment
of compensation and mandi fee and
development
cess-amount
paid-trucks
released-not open to challenge the seizure
and compounding order thereafter-W.P.
dismissed with cost. (E-9)

Cases cited:

## Text

3-5 All. M/s Atul Rahul Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Director Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Kisan Mandi Lko. & Anr.
1089
learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special
Judge (D.A.A.), Banda is hereby quashed.

30. The Court below is hereby
directed to release the firearms in question,
viz Rifle No. 10A-B 05878-315 N.P. Bore
and three life cartridges and Pistol No. R.P.
213879-32 Bore and four live cartridges
which are confiscated by the police in Case
Crime No. 128 of 2019 (State Vs. Pankaj
Gautam) in Sessions Trial No. 70 of 2019,
under Sections 286/386/392/504/411 I.P.C,
Police Station Atarra, District Banda, upon
furnishing an appropriate bond by the
present revisionist and guarantee to the
satisfaction of the court below, ensuring the
ownership and return of said firearms, if
required, at any point of time.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1089
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Misc. Single No. 1787 of 2020

M/s Atul Rahul Agro Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Director Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad
Kisan Mandi Lko. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Suresh Chandra Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
N.C. Mehrotra

Civil Law-Two trucks seized transporting
35o
quintals
rice-Petitioner
filed
an
appication for compounding the offenceoffence compounded subject to payment
of compensation and mandi fee and
development
cess-amount
paid-trucks
released-not open to challenge the seizure
and compounding order thereafter-W.P.
dismissed with cost. (E-9)

Cases cited:

1. Prestige Lights Ltd. v. S.B.I., (2007) 8 SCC
449

2. K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, (2008) 12 SCC 481

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,
J.)

1. Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. This petition has been filed praying
inter alia the following reliefs:

(a) issue a writ, order, direction in
the nature of quashing the impugned order
dated 07.12.2019 passed by opposite party
no. 1 vide the revision no. 1063/2019 in the
interest of justice contained in Annexure
No. 1

(b) issue a writ, order, direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 13.06.2019 passed
by opposite party no. 2 and release the
amount of Rs 4,71,227/- and direct the
opposite parties to refund the money with
interest @ 18% in the interest of justice
contained in Annexure No. 9, 10 & 11.

(c) issue a writ, order, direction in
the nature of mandamus and commanding
the opposite parties to pay Rs 60,000/- as
demurrage and Rs 50,000/- as Advocate
fees.

3. Briefly stated, the facts are these:
On 29.05.2019 at about 07:00 p.m., the
officials of Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti,
Ghaziabad (for short the ''Mandi Samiti'),
intercepted two trucks bearing registration
1090 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
nos. HR 69 D 2960 and HR 69 C 4239, at
NHAI Galalpurwa Toll Plaza. Each truck
was laden with 350 quintals of rice which
was being transported by the petitioner
from Bahraich to Delhi without valid
papers as required under The Uttar Pradesh
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964
(for short ''the Adhiniyam'). The officials,
after confiscating the vehicles and the rice
under section 36 of the Adhiniyam
prepared a seizure memo and made a report
to
the
Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Ghaziabad. Two criminal cases bearing
Nos. 23518/2019 & 23519/2019 were
instituted against the petitioner and the
truck drivers namely Ravi Yadav and
Jagtan Singh.

4. On 13.06.2019, before the court in
seisin of the case could proceed with the
complaint,
the
petitioner
filed
an
application before the Mandi Samiti for
compounding the offence. The Mandi
Samiti, by its order dated 13.06.2019
passed under section 37-A(1) of the
Adhiniyam acceded to the prayer and
compounded the offence against the
petitioner and the truck drivers, subject to
payment of Rs 4,71,226/- (Rs 34,038
towards mandi fee and development cess
and Rs 2,00,000/- towards composition fee
with regard to truck no. HR 69 D 2960 and
Rs
37,188
towards
mandi
fee
and
development cess and Rs 2,00,000/-
towards composition fee with regard to
truck no. HR 69 C 4239). On 13.06.2019
itself, the petitioner deposited the amount
with the Mandi Samiti through RTGS. As
soon as the payment was made, the trucks
and the goods seized were released in
favour of the petitioner. Subsequently, by
two separate but identical orders passed by
the Chief Judicial Magistrate the criminal
proceedings initiated against the petitioner
and the two truck drivers were dropped.
One such order dated 26.06.2019 passed in
Case No. 23519 of 2019 is reproduced
below:

Þ26@06@19 ifjokn izLrqr ifjoknh
ds vf/koDrk mifLFkr mudh rjQ ls dFku fd;k
x;k dh ekeys dk 'keu vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk & 37
,0 ds rgr fd;k tk pqdk vr% oks ekeys dks
vkxs ugh pykuk pkgrs gSA lfpo d`f"k mRiknu
e.Mh lfefr Jh lR; iky xaxokj dh fjiksVZ
i=kad d`0m0e0l0 lpy ny 2019&209 fnukad
13@06@19 dks voyksdu c;ku fd;kA vk/kkj
i;kZIr vr% /kkjk 37 1⁄421⁄2 ds rgr dk;Zokgh lekIr
dh tkrh gSAß

5. On 28.08.2019, the petitioner filed
a revision (bearing Revision No. 256 of
2019, M/s Atul Rahul Agro Private Limited
Vs. Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Parishad)
under
section
32
of
the
Adhiniyam before the Director, Rajya
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P.,
respondent no.1 herein, against the order
dated 13.06.2019, inter alia, contending
that the rice was being transported on valid
papers. The said submission did not find
favour with the respondent no. 1 and the
revision was rejected as not maintainable
by an order dated 07.12.2019. The
respondent no. 1 held that once the
petitioner had admitted his guilt and the
offence had been compounded on the
request of the petitioner itself, and the
goods alongwith the trucks have been
released, the challenge to the order
compounding
the
offence
was
not
maintainable. The relevant portion of the
order date 07.12.2019 is extracted below:

Þiz'uxr fuxjkuh es cgl ds le;
fuxjkuhdrkZ QeZ ds vf/koDrk ,oa foi{kh e.Mh
lfefr] xkft;kckn dh vksj ls lfpo mifLFkr
gq,A mHk; i{kksa dks U;k;ky; es foLrkj ls lquk
x;k vkSj muds }kjk nkf[ky vfHkys[kksa dk
voyksdu fd;k x;kA fuxjkuhdrkZ us m0 iz0
3-5 All. M/s Atul Rahul Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Director Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Kisan Mandi Lko. & Anr.
1091
d`f"k mRiknu e.Mh vf/kfu;e 1964 dh /kkjk&37
ds vUrxZr izkFkZuk&i= fnukad 13-06-2019 e.Mh
lfefr ds le{k izLrqr fd;k Fkk] ftles
fuxjkuhdrkZ us viuk vijk/k Lohdkj djrs gq,
ns; e.Mh 'kqYd] fodkl lsl rFkk 'keu 'kqYd
ysdj eky ,oa okgu dks NksM+us ds fy, vkns'k
ikfjr djus gsrq e.Mh lfefr ls izkFkZuk dh FkhA
fuxjkuhdrkZ dh vksj ls izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= ij
fopkjksijkUr e.Mh lfefr us vkns'k fnukad 13-062019 }kjk fuxjkuh QeZ ij e.Mh 'kqYd] fodkl
lsl rFkk 'keu 'kqYd vf/kjksfir fd;k FkkA
fuxjkuhdrkZ us e.Mh lfefr }kjk ikfjr vkns'k
fnukad 13-06-2019 ds vuqikyu es vf/kjksfir dh
x;h /kujkf'k dks e.Mh lfefr es tek dj fn;k gS
vkSj mDr dze es fuxjkuhdrkZ ds nksuksa Vadksa dks
eky lfgr NksM+ fn;k gSA pWwfd fuxjkuhdrkZ us
vius vijk/k dks Lohdkj dj fy;k gS vkSj e.Mh
lfefr] xkft;kckn }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnuakd 1306-2019 ds vuqikyu es vf/kjksfir dqy /kujkf'k
:0 4]71]226-00 jlhn la[;k& 0304537 fnukad
13-06-2019 ,oa jlhn la[;k& 0304538 fnukad
13-06-2019 }kjk e.Mh lfefr] xkft;kckn es tek
dj nh x;h gSA

vr% mDr of.kZr rF;ksa ds ifjizs{; es
fuxjkuhdrkZ }kjk nkf[ky fuxjkuh iks"k.kh; u
gksus ds dkj.k [kkfjt dh tkrh gSA iz'uxr
vkns'k
dh
izfr
fuxjkuhdrkZ
QeZ
,oa
lHkkifr@lfpo e.Mh lfefr] xkft;kckn dks
izsf"kr dh tk;sAß

6. The orders dated 13.06.2019 and
07.12.2019 are under challenge in the present
petition.

7. Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
there was no evasion of any mandi fee and it
was on account of the breakdown of truck No.
HR 69 D 2960 that the trucks reached the toll
on 29.05.2019. The counsel submits that the
paper accompanying the said trucks were in
order but in order to harass the petitioner and
for extraneous consideration the trucks were
seized by the officials of the Mandi Samiti. The
counsel has contended with vehemence that
since seizure of rice and the trucks was not
reported to the Chief Judicial Magistrate
forthwith, as contemplated under the proviso to
section 36(1) of the Adhiniyam, the entire
proceedings against the petitioner are liable to
be set aside. He has further contended that in
terms of section 37-A(1) reproduced in
paragraph 15 of the petition, the maximum
composition fee which could be charged from
the petitioner was Rs 20,000/- with regard to
one offence and as such the imposition of Rs
2,00,000/- towards composition fee was
without jurisdiction. No other submission has
been made.

8. Sri N.C. Mehrotra, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the
other hand, has supported the impugned orders.
He has submitted that the rice was being
transported by the petitioner without valid
papers. He has submitted that the goods were
seized and on receiving the application from the
petitioner for compounding of offence, the
same was compounded and as such it is not
open to the petitioner to challenge the seizure.
The counsel has submitted that the composition
fee charged from the petitioner is in accordance
with section 37-A(1) of the Adhiniyam. He has
submitted that the petitioner has tried to mislead
the Court by quoting unamended section 37-A
in the writ petition. The petition according to
him is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

9. The petitioner has challenged the
levy of Rs 2,00,000/- on the strength of
section
37-A(1)
of
the
Adhiniyam,
reproduced by him in paragraph 15 of the
petition. Paragraph 15 of the petition are
extracted below:

15.
That
"section-37
A
Composition of offence-(1) A market
committee or its sub-committee or with the
authorisation
by
a
resolution
of
a
committee, its Chairman, may accept from
1092 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any person who has committed or is
reasonably suspected or having committed
an offence punishable under this Act in
addition to the fee or other amount
recoverable from him, a sum of money not
exceeding rupees 53(Twenty thousand) by
way of composition fee and compound the
offence."

10. Sri N.C. Mehrotra has submitted
that
section
37-A(1)
reproduced
in
paragraph 15 of the petition is an
unamended section. He has submitted that
by U.P. Act 24 of 2018, Section 37-A of
the
Adhiniyam
has
been
amended.
Amended section 37-A is reproduced
below:

37-A. Composition of offences.-
(1) A market committee or its sub
Committee or with the authorization by a
resolution of a committee, its Chairman,
may accept from any person who has
committed or is reasonably suspected of
having committed an offence punishable
under this Act in addition to the fee or other
amount recoverable from him, a sum of
money equal to ten times the sum of market
fee and development cess assessed due on
the equivalent agricultural produce in
accordance wíth the explanation given in
the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 66 of the
Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Niyamavali, 1965 or Rupees Two Lakh,
whichever is less and for other offence, a
sum of money not exceeding rupees twenty
thousand by way of composition fee and
compound the offence.

(2) On the composition of any
offence
under
sub-section
(1)
no
proceeding shall be taken or continued
against the person concerned in respect of
such offence, and if any proceedings in
respect of that offence have already been
instituted against him in any Court, the
composition shall have 9the effect of his
acquittal.

(emphasis supplied)

11. The major contention of the
learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
maximum fee which could be levied
towards composition fee was Rs 20,000/-.
The very foundation of this argument is
unstable as the learned counsel for the
petitioner
has
been
relying
on
the
unamended provisions of the Adhiniyam
which did not provide for the composition
fee of Rs Two Lakhs. The amended
provisions, as applicable to the present
matter, expressly provide for compounding
of offences punishable under the Act on the
payment of a sum of money equal to ten
times
the
sum
of
market
fee
and
development cess assessed due on the
equivalent
agricultural
produce
in
accordance wíth the explanation given in
the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 66 of the
Uttar Pradesh Krishí Utpadan Mandi
Niyamavali, 1965 or Rupees Two Lakh,
whichever is less. Thus, the petitioner's
challenge to the authority of the market
committee's power to charge Rupees Two
Lakhs is absolutely misconceived.

12. Neither the application moved by
the petitioner for compounding nor the
order passed by the Mandi Samiti thereon
has been brought on record. A copy of
memo
of
revision
dated
28.08.2019
preferred by the petitioner against the
compounding order dated 13.06.2019 is
also not on record. A perusal of annexure
no. 6, which is alleged to be the memo of
revision, shows that it is in fact a letter
addressed to the Director Mandi Samiti
requesting him to direct the concerned
officials not to harass the petitioner. On top
of the said letter, the following heading has
been written by hand.
3-5 All. M/s Atul Rahul Agro Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Director Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad Kisan Mandi Lko. & Anr.
1093

"Under
the
inherent
and
supervisory powers under Section 32 of the
U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam,
1984"

13. A perusal of Section 37-A as
quoted by the petitioner in Paragraph 15 of
the writ petition (reproduced above) on one
hand, and Section 37-A as amended on the
other, clearly shows that Section 37-A has
been wrongly quoted by the petitioner. It is
also to be noted that in spite of the
amended provision being brought to the
notice of the learned counsel for the
petitioner, he has continued to rely upon
the unamended provision to argue that a
maximum composition fee of Rs 20,000/-
could
have
been
charged
from
the
petitioner. The failure to bring the relevant
documents such as the application for
compounding and the memo or revision,
and the overall conduct of the petitioner
shows that the petitioner has not come
before this Court with clean hands. The
petitioner is thus guilty of suppression,
concealment, misrepresentation of facts and
attempting to mislead this Court.

14. In exercising its discretionary
power under Article 226 and 227 of the
Constitution, this Court is not just a Court
of law, but is also a Court of equity and a
person who invokes the writ jurisdiction of
this Court is duty-bound to place all the
facts before the Court without any
reservation. It is well settled that in
exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution, this Court always keeps in
mind the conduct of the party invoking
such jurisdiction. If the petitioner does not
disclose full facts or suppresses relevant
material
or
is
otherwise
guilty
of
misleading the Court, then the Court may
dismiss the action without adjudicating the
matter on merits. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v.
State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449, the
Apex Court has observed that the said rule
has been evolved in larger public interest to
-

"deter unscrupulous litigants from
abusing the process of court by deceiving
it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction
rests in disclosure of true, complete and
correct facts. If the material facts are not
candidly stated or are suppressed or are
distorted, the very functioning of the writ
courts would become impossible."

 (emphasis supplied)

15. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority
of India Limited, (2008) 12 SCC 481, the
Apex Court reiterated that the petitioners
approaching this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution must disclose all the
material facts without any qualification. It
was held as under:-

"38. As per settled law, the party
who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 32 or of a High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
is supposed to be truthful, frank and open.
He must disclose all material facts without
any reservation even if they are against
him. He cannot be allowed to play "hide
and seek" or to "pick and choose" the facts
he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep
back) or not to disclose (conceal) other
facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction
rests in disclosure of true and complete
(correct) facts. If material facts are
suppressed
or
distorted,
the
very
functioning of writ courts and exercise
would become impossible. The petitioner
must disclose all the facts having a bearing
on
the
relief
sought
without
any
qualification. This is because "the court
knows law but not facts".
1094 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

39. If the primary object as
highlighted in Kensington Income Tax
Commrs. [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257
: 116 LT 136 (CA)] is kept in mind, an
applicant who does not come with candid
facts and "clean breast" cannot hold a writ
of
the
court
with
"soiled
hands".
Suppression or concealment of material
facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery,
manipulation,
manoeuvring
or
misrepresentation, which has no place in
equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If
the applicant does not disclose all the
material facts fairly and truly but states
them in a distorted manner and misleads
the court, the court has inherent power in
order to protect itself and to prevent an
abuse of its process to discharge the rule
nisi and refuse to proceed further with the
examination of the case on merits. If the
court does not reject the petition on that
ground, the court would be failing in its
duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to
be dealt with for contempt of court for
abusing the process of the court."

(emphasis supplied)

16. In light of the petitioner's
deliberate attempts at misleading this
Court and the judgments of the Apex
Court cited above, the present petition
is liable to be dismissed on this ground
alone.

17. Even on merits, the present
writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

18. Admittedly, on 13.06.2019,
after the goods and the trucks were
seized
and
criminal
cases
were
instituted against the petitioner, the
petitioner moved an application before
the
Mandi
Samiti
admitting
the
commission of offence and expressing
his desire to pay the requisite mandi fee
and
development
cess
along
with
penalty if any. The request of the
petitioner was acceded to and the Mandi
Samiti,
through
its
order
dated
13.06.2019, compounded the offence
subject to the payment of a total sum of
Rs 4,71,226/- (Rs 2,34,038 with regard
to truck no. HR 69 D 2960 and Rs
2,37,188 with regard to truck No. HR
69 C 4239). The very same day the
petitioner deposited the said amount in
the Mandi Samiti through RTGS, and
thereafter, the goods and the trucks
were
released
and
the
criminal
proceedings
initiated
against
the
petitioner and the two truck drivers
were dropped.

19. The petitioner accepted the
order passed by the Secretary mandi
and in pursuance thereto deposited a
sum of Rs 4,71,226/- through RTGS in
the criminal cases initiated instituted
against him and on that basis, both the
trucks of the petitioner were released
and the criminal cases instituted against
the petitioner were dropped.

20. In the aforesaid background, once the
petitioner has admitted his guilt and has opted
for compounding of the same, and has further
deposited the penalty imposed upon him and
has had the trucks released after getting the
criminal cases instituted against him withdrawn,
it is not open to the petitioner to turn around and
challenge the seizure and order compounding
the offence. The revision preferred by the
petitioner against the compounding order dated
13.06.2019 passed by the Secretary, Mandi
Samiti, has rightly been dismissed by the
respondent no.1 as not maintainable.

21. The revision preferred by the
petitioner against the said order has rightly been
dismissed by the Director, Mandi Samiti.
3-5 All. Ram Sanwarey Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
1095

22. Thus, in addition to suppression,
concealment and attempts at misleading
this Court, the writ petition is also totally
misconceived and is accordingly dismissed
with exemplary cost of Rs 2 lakhs.

23. The petitioner is directed to
deposit the cost with the Senior Registrar of
this Court at Lucknow within six weeks
from today. The cost so deposited shall be
remitted to the Mediation and Conciliation
Centre of this Court. In case, the cost is not
deposited by the petitioner within the time
granted to him for the purpose, the same
shall be realized from him as arrears of
land revenue.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1095
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 04.03.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA,
J.

Misc. Single No. 2391 of 2016

Ram Sanwarey Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rohit Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Balram Yadav, Neeraj Chaurasiya

Civil
law-Petitioner
resorted-deliberate
misrepresentation-fraud upon court-W.P.
dismissed with cost of Rs.50,000/- (E-9)

Cases cited:

1. Shrisht Dhawan Vs. Shaw Bros., (1992) 1 SCC
534

2. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath,
(1994) 1 SCC 1

3. Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & ors.,
(2003) 8 SCC 319

4. St. of U.P. & anr. Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao,
(2005) 6 SCC 149

5. Dalip Singh Vs. St. of U.P. & ors., 2010 (2)
SCC 114

6. Hari Narain Vs. Badri Das AIR 1963 SC 1558,

7.Welcome Hotel Vs. St. of A.P. (1983) 4 SCC
575

8. G. Narayanaswamy Reddy Vs. Govt. of
Karnataka (1991) 3 SCC 261

9. Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. S.B.I. (2007) 8 SCC
449

10. Sunil Poddar Vs. U.O.I. (2008) 2 SCC 326

11.K.D. Sharma Vs. S.A.I.L. (2008) 12 SCC 481

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner, who alleges himself to be the
Manager since 1990 of Kedar Nath
Shikshan Sansthan, a Society established in
1977 and renewed from time to time
thereafter,
against
the
order
dated
31.12.2015 passed by the respondent no.4-
the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies &
Chits, Head Quarters, Lucknow, in which
he has directed the registration of list of
members of the Committee of Management
of the Society on the basis of documents
submitted by the respondent nos.7 and 8 as
the Manager and the President respectively
of the Society.