# RAMESH CHANDRA ETC v. STATE OF U.P. ETC - **Citation:** [1980] 3 S.C.R. 104 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1980-03-25 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 1841-1846 of 1978 - **Bench:** Y. V. Chanijrachud, V. R. Krishna Iyer, N. L. Untwalia, P. N. Shinghal, A. D. KosHAL - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ramesh-chandra-etc-v-state-of-u-p-etc-7949 - **Pages:** 35 ## Headnote Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1954 (U.P., Act XXV of 1964), Ss. 2 (a), (p), (y), (k), 6, 17, and Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Niyamawalli 1965, Rules 66, 67 and 68-Levy of market fee by market · C Committees in Uttar Pradesh on transactions relating to agricultural produce --A' D E , G H --11alidity of-Declaration of big areas as n1arket area-Whether offends the law. Market Committees-To be constituted in a regular manner and on a pernianent baiis-Machinery to be evolved for setting dz'sputes. The Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (U.P. Act XXV of 1964) provides for the regulation of sale and purchase of agricultμra! produce and for the establishment superintendence and control Of ma .. kets in Uttar Pradesh. The enactment Was passed for the development of new market areas and for efficient data collection and processing of arrivals in the Mandies to enable the World Bank to give a substantial help for the establishment of various markets in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It led to the establishment of Market Areas, Principal Market Yards and Sub-Market Yards and levying of the fee in relation to transactions of certain commodities in the State ·of Uuar Pradesh. Various Macket Committees were formed known as Mandi Samitis. Jn order to give effect to the working of the Act the Uttar Pradesh Krisbi Utpadan Mandi Niyamawalli 1965, being Rules under the Act were made by the Governor. The Act was amended several times but the Rules were not accordingly amended as and when required to make them uptodate in accordance with the amended Act. "Agricultural Produce" has been defined in clause (a) of s. 2 of tho Act to mean:- "Such items of produce Olf agriculture, horticulture. viticulture, apiculture, sericulture, pisci-culture, animal husbandry or forest as are specified in the Schedule, and includes a mixture of two or more of such items, and also includes any such item in processed form, and further includes gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery." ·while Clause (e) defines "commission agent" or "Arhatiya" to mean:- "a , person who, in the ordinary course of 1 business, makes or offers to make, a purchase or sale of agricultural produce, on behalf of the owner or seller or purchaser of agricultural produce, for Arhat or commission". ( ·~ / / RAMESH CHANDRA V. U. P. STATE 105 under clause (p), ""producer" means a person who, whether by himself or through hired labour, produces, rears or catches, any agricultural produce, not being a prOOucer who also works as a trader, broker or Dalal, commission agent or Arhatiya or who is otherwise ordinarily engaged in the business of storage of agricultural produce". Cause (y) defines a "trader" to mean :- "a person who in the ordinary course of business is enga8ed in buying or selling agricultural produce as a principal or as a duly authorised agent of one or ni.ore principals and includes a person, engaged in processing of agricultural produce. n Under Clause (k), 'Market Area' means an area notified as such under Section 6, or as modified under Section 8, while 'Principal Market Yard' has been defined under clause (o) to mean, the ponion of a Mark,1 Area, declared as such under Section 7, and 'Sub Market Yard' under clause (w) means a portion of a Market Area, declared as such under Section 7. 'Ibe State Goverment under s. 8 has got the power to alter any market area and modify the list of agricultural produce. Section 9 provides for the effects of declaration of Market Area. Chapter IIl of the Act deals with the establishment, incorporation and constitution of, the> Market Committees, section 17 provides for the power of the Committee. Clause (i) authorises a Committee to issue or renew licences under the Act on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as may be prescnOed. Clause (iii) authorises a Committee to levy and collect (a) such Fees as may be prescribed for the issue or renewal of licences, and (b) market fee at the rate and in ## Text _Characters 0–39,766 of 91,184. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39766 for what follows._ A B 104 RAMESH CHANDRA ETC. v. STATE OF U.P. ETC. March 25, 1980 [Y. V. CHANIJRACHUD, C.J., V. R. KRISHNA IYER, N. L. UNTWALIA, P. N. SHINGHAL AND A. D. KosHAL,. JJ.] Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1954 (U.P., Act XXV of 1964), Ss. 2 (a), (p), (y), (k), 6, 17, and Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Niyamawalli 1965, Rules 66, 67 and 68-Levy of market fee by market · C Committees in Uttar Pradesh on transactions relating to agricultural produce --A' D E , G H --11alidity of-Declaration of big areas as n1arket area-Whether offends the law. Market Committees-To be constituted in a regular manner and on a pernianent baiis-Machinery to be evolved for setting dz'sputes. The Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (U.P. Act XXV of 1964) provides for the regulation of sale and purchase of agricultμra! produce and for the establishment superintendence and control Of ma .. kets in Uttar Pradesh. The enactment Was passed for the development of new market areas and for efficient data collection and processing of arrivals in the Mandies to enable the World Bank to give a substantial help for the establishment of various markets in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It led to the establishment of Market Areas, Principal Market Yards and Sub-Market Yards and levying of the fee in relation to transactions of certain commodities in the State ·of Uuar Pradesh. Various Macket Committees were formed known as Mandi Samitis. Jn order to give effect to the working of the Act the Uttar Pradesh Krisbi Utpadan Mandi Niyamawalli 1965, being Rules under the Act were made by the Governor. The Act was amended several times but the Rules were not accordingly amended as and when required to make them uptodate in accordance with the amended Act. "Agricultural Produce" has been defined in clause (a) of s. 2 of tho Act to mean:- "Such items of produce Olf agriculture, horticulture. viticulture, apiculture, sericulture, pisci-culture, animal husbandry or forest as are specified in the Schedule, and includes a mixture of two or more of such items, and also includes any such item in processed form, and further includes gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery." ·while Clause (e) defines "commission agent" or "Arhatiya" to mean:- "a , person who, in the ordinary course of 1 business, makes or offers to make, a purchase or sale of agricultural produce, on behalf of the owner or seller or purchaser of agricultural produce, for Arhat or commission". ( ·~ / / RAMESH CHANDRA V. U. P. STATE 105 under clause (p), ""producer" means a person who, whether by himself or through hired labour, produces, rears or catches, any agricultural produce, not being a prOOucer who also works as a trader, broker or Dalal, commission agent or Arhatiya or who is otherwise ordinarily engaged in the business of storage of agricultural produce". Cause (y) defines a "trader" to mean :- "a person who in the ordinary course of business is enga8ed in buying or selling agricultural produce as a principal or as a duly authorised agent of one or ni.ore principals and includes a person, engaged in processing of agricultural produce. n Under Clause (k), 'Market Area' means an area notified as such under Section 6, or as modified under Section 8, while 'Principal Market Yard' has been defined under clause (o) to mean, the ponion of a Mark,1 Area, declared as such under Section 7, and 'Sub Market Yard' under clause (w) means a portion of a Market Area, declared as such under Section 7. 'Ibe State Goverment under s. 8 has got the power to alter any market area and modify the list of agricultural produce. Section 9 provides for the effects of declaration of Market Area. Chapter IIl of the Act deals with the establishment, incorporation and constitution of, the> Market Committees, section 17 provides for the power of the Committee. Clause (i) authorises a Committee to issue or renew licences under the Act on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as may be prescnOed. Clause (iii) authorises a Committee to levy and collect (a) such Fees as may be prescribed for the issue or renewal of licences, and (b) market fee at the rate and in the manner provided therein. [Though clause (b) of section 17 (iii) had undergone drastic changes from time to time, the Rules Were not correspondingly amended.] Section 19 provides for the Market Committee Fund and its utilisation. Section 19-B was introduced in the Act by U.P. Act 7 of 1978 w.e.f. 29-12-1977 providing for the establishment of 'Market Development Fund' for each committee. The Rule making power of the State Government is in Section 40, Rule 66 deals with the levy of market fee, Rule 68 provides for its recovery end Rule 67 provides for licence fee. By a State Government notification, which was issued on April fl, 1978 making it effective from May l, 1978, almost the whole of Uttar Pradesh had been declared to be a Market Area, dividing it into 250 areas and indicating in Schedule 8 of the Notification 115 commodities in respect of which the fee could be levied by the Market Committees. Declaration of Principal Market Yards and Sub-Market Yards under Section 7 had also been made. A B c D E G Various traders carrying on business in the State of Uttar Pradesh within the jurisdiction of several Market Committees challenged the levy of fee in the High Court from time to time. There were several rounds of litigation and the writ petitions were dismissed. On account of the litigations between the traders and the Market Committees, the workiruz of the Committees had D not successfully proceeded, as fees levied from tune to time could no. be 8-189 SCI/80 A B c D 106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R. realised in full. Sometimes illegal or unauthorised collections have been made. Money justifiably realised also had not been 'fully utilised as it ought to have been done. In the appeals and writ petitions to this court it was contended on behalf of the appe!lants and petitioners that :- 1. Big areas consisting of towns and villages have been notified as Market Areas without rende'ring any service, which is contrary to the whole object of the Act and the concept of fee. 2. No market area or market yard had been validly created. 3. No Mandi Samiti (Market Committee) had been validly appointed. 4. No machinery had been provided in the Rules for adjudication of disputes. 5. Fixation of minimum of I% to be charged as market fee by all the Market Committees under s. 17 (iii )(b) of the Act was illegal as the requirement of and the services to be rendered by the various Market Committees could not be on the same footing. 6. There was no application of mind in issuing the notification dated 11-4-1978 whereby 250 market areas were notified and 115 items of agricul· tural produce were specified. 7. There could not be any multi point levy of any market fee either in the same me.rket area or in different market areas. 8. The retrospective operation of the law brought about in s. 17(ili)(b) by U.P. Act 7 of 1978 w.e.f. 12-6-1973 was bad. E 9. No market fee could be levied on goods not produced within the limits of a particular market area and if produced outside and brought in sueh area. 10. No market fee could be levied both on paddy and rice. The rice millers had been illegally asked to pay market fee on their sale of rice, Similarly no market fee was payable on Ghee either by the producer-trader F of Ghee or by its purchaser. G H 11. Fee could be charged on sale of animals but could not be charged on hides and skins as was being illegally done. ~ - 12. Fee co,uld be charged on wood or timber but could not be charged either on furniture manufactured from such wood or timber or on Catechu (Katha). 13. Wood cut and brought from the jungle by a manufacturer or paper could not be subjected to levy of fee. -14. Some of the items mentioned in the notification are Kirana goods brought from outside the market area or even from other States for sale in different Mandis, and cannot be subjected to the levy of 11111rket fee. 15. No market fee could be charged" on tobacco or tendu leaves nor on bid is. 16. No market fee could be charged on rilb salawat and rah galawat.. I RAMESH CHANDRA V. U. P. STATE 107 17. No market fee am be charged if only goods are brought in a market 6rea and despatched outside it without there taking place any transaction of purchase and sale in respect of these goods. 18. If no licence is issued or taken under s. 9(1) of the Act tlien there is no liability to pay a market fee. 19. No market fee ce.n be levied on transactions of match boxes, soyabin B products. 20. No market fee can be charged from the vendors of fruits and vegetables through their Commission Agents. 21. Fee can be charged only on those transactions· in which the seller is prcx:I ucer and not on any other transaction, and market fee can be charged C only on_ those transactions in which the seller is the purchaser o( agricultural produce and not on any other transaction. HELD : 1. Declaration of big areas as Market Areas does not offend any provision of la\\'. Any area big or small including towns and villages can be declared as Market Area under s. 6 of the Act. [121 F] D 2. The traders are required to take out licences under s.9(2) read with s.11 of the Act, for such place which is either a principal J\ifarket Yard or a sub-Market Yard or at any specified place in the Market Area. No body ean be permitted to carry on his business anywhere in the Market Areas a1 the Market Committee will not be able to control and levy fee throughout the · Market Area. [121 G-HJ 3. (i) Market Committees have not yet been constituted in accorUance. with the provisions contained in s. 13 of the Act. They have been constituted temporarily under Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samitis (Alpakalik Vyawastha) Adhiniyam, 1972 which \Vas a temporary Act, extended from year to year. It is high time that Market Committees should be constituted in a regular manner on a permanent basis in accordance with the provisions E contained in Chapter III of the Act. [123 CJ F (ii) The levy and collection of fee by the temporary Market Committees is not illegal as argued on behalf of the appellant>;. [123 DJ Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Puniab [1979] 3 S.C.R. 1217, referred to. 4. A machinery for adjudication of disputes is necessary to be provided under the Rules for the proper functioning of the Market Committees. [123 E] G 5(i) Under clause (b) of s. 17(iii) of the Act a minimum end maximum limit of market fee chargeable has been fixed by the legislatore. The minimum is 1 % and the maximum is H% of the price of the agricultural produce sold. The fixing of the minimum of 1 % fee by itself is not illegal but it would be subject to the rendering of adequate services. [123 G] (ii) The charging of 1 % fee throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh 1iy all the market Committees is not illegal and does not go beyond the quid pra qua theory discussed in Puri's case. [124 Al H 108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 s.c.R. ' A . 6. The notification dated 11-4-1978 indicates that in the various Districts, which number about 55, 250 Market Committees have been constituted and about 115 items have been selected in respect of which market fee has been directed to be levied. None of the items so specified is such that it cannnt be covered by the Schedule which is a part of the Act. The definition of 'egricultural produce' is very wide, and it is not confined to items of agricultural produce only but includes items of produce of horticulture, viticulture, B apiculture, sericulture, pisCi-culture, animal husbandry or forest. (124 CJ c D E 7(i) All the four clauses of clanse (b) of S. 17(iii) are mutually exclusive. If the produce is purchased from a producer directly the trader shall be liable to pay the market fee to the Committee in accordance with sub-clause (2). But if the trader sells ·the same produce or any product of the same produce to another trader· neither the seller trader nor the purchasertrader can be made t<> pay tho market fee und01' sub-clause (3). [125 CJ (ii) In a particular market area market fee oonuot be levied both in relation to the transaction of purchase and sale of paddy and the rice produced from the same paddy. Fee can be charged only on one transaction. This finds support from the unamended Rules as they are, wherein is to be found sub-r. (2) of Rule 66, There is nothing in the provisions of the Act or the Rules to warrant the view that in another market area the Market Committee of that area cannot levy fee on a fresh transaction of sale and purchase taking place in that area. [125 H· 126 A] 8(i) Before 1973, reading the provisions of the Act and the Rules, market fee was to be charged at such rates as specified in the by&-laws of a particular Market Committee. But it could not exceed 1/2 perccntum of the price of the agricultural produce. The liability to pay the fee was of the seller of the agricultural produce. Market fee was liable to be paid under Rule 68 (2) (ii) even if the specified agricultural produces was sold directly by the seller to the consumer. This provision has oow been superseded by an amendment in the Act brought about by U.P. Act 19 of 1979. [127 F-GJ (ii) After the amendment in the Statute, Rules could apply only mutatia F mutandis and wherever there was a conflict between the Rules and the Statute the latter had o prevail. [128 DJ H (iii) The State Legislatures are competent to make retrospective amend· ment and retrospective imposition of a fee is valid. However, in a given case and in a given situation the retrospective operation may be hit by Article 19. [129 A·BJ B. Banerjee v. Anita Pan [1975] 2 S.C.R. 774, Mis. S. K. G. Sugar Ltd. v. State of Bihar & Ors. [1975] 1 S.C.R. 312 and H. H. Sudhundra Thirtlia S·wamiar v. Commissioner for Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment!, Mysore [1963] Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 302 referred to. (iv) The Rules which were framed in 1965 oomely Rules 66 and 68 are very diffea-ent from the present provision of law. The Government bas failed to amend the Rules and bringing it in confirmity with the amended provisions of the Statute from time to time. The Rules will apply as far as possible so long they do not come in conflict with the Statute and eveo I I RAMESH CHA\'IDRA v. U. P. STATE 109 without the aid of the Rules the provision in section 17(ili) (b) as it stands after the amendment brought about by U.P. Act 7 of 1978 is workable and can be given effect to. [128 G-HJ In the present case the retrospectivity of the law as such is not bad and the only safeguard will be that if market fee has been realised by any Market Committee in respect of transactions of sale of agricultural produce taking A' place b-een 12-6-1973 and the coming into force of U.P. Act 7 of 1978, B in accordance with law as it prevailed then, no market fee under tho amended law can be realized again. But if in respect of ariy transactions aforesaid market fee had not yet been roo.lised then it can be realised in accordance with the amended provision of the law. (129 CJ 9. No provision in the Act or the Rules limit the operation of the law in a particular market area only in respect of the agricultural produce proC duced in that area. [129 GJ IO(i) A producer who produces agricultural produce generally does not indulge in trading activities so as to beCome a trader within the meaning of clause (y). He is covered by clause (p) only. If a perse>n is simply a trader indulging in trading acti'1ties he is covered by the definition in clause (y). The expression producer-trader has been coined for a person who is both a pro be levied and ce>llected in relatie>n IC> the trans· actie>n e>f paddy alone. Otherwise there will be a risk of vie>lation of Article 14 if it Is left te> the Market Committee in the case of some rice millen to D E ~ . charge market fee on the transaction of paddy and in the case of others J' to charge it when the sale of the rice takes place. If, he>wever, paddy is brought by the rice miller from another market area, then the Market Committee of the ma where paddy is converted into rice and se>ld will be entitled le> charro market fee oo the transaction and sale in accordance with .ub-clause (3). (130 F-GJ (iv) In transactions of Ghee, a dealer who purchases milk or cream G from the villagen and others and manufactures Ghee in his plant will be liable to pay market fee because he is the producer of Ghee within tho meaning of the Act and at the same time a trader in Ghee also. When ho sells Ghee to another dealer. in Ghee who is simply a deruer then under sub-clause (3) of Section 17(iii)(b), the manufacturing deeler will be liable to pay market fee to the Market Committee or the transaction of Ghee, but he will be entitled to pass on the bmden to his purchaser. [131 C.DJ H 11. The definition clause (a) of section 2 uses the expression 'animal lm!bandry' by way of a descriptive· one without strictly confining to the pro· 110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1980] 3 S.C.R. A products of animal husbandry as the additions, of the words 'specified in the -<\ achedule' indicates. In the schedule under the group 'husbandry products' are mentioned item 11_ hides and skins, item 12 bones, item 13 meat etc. \- Market fee is, therefore, leviable on the transactions of hides and skins a& no market fee can be charged on transactions of sale and purchase of aninuils in a market area in the State of Uttar Pradesh the same having not been included in the notification. Had it been included in the notification, then B no market fee could be charged in the same market area on hides and skins. It could only be charged in relation to the transaction of purchase and sale of animals. (131 H, G; 132 B-C] 12. Group E of the notification· dated 11-4-1978 deals with forest products. The items mentioned therein are (I) Gum, (2) Wood, (3) Tendu leaves, (4) Catechu, and (5) Lac. Market fee can be charged on purchase C of wood by a trader from a producer. No fee can be charged on the sale of furniture manufactured by the purchaser of wood. According to the Market Committees Catechu is a product from timber Ot trees like Gum or Lac, which trickles down from the trees, while, according to the Catechu dealers by processing of Khar trees Catechu is produced. This question of fact is left to be decided by the Market Committees concerned in the first instance and then by a court of law. If Catechu is a product of Khar trees D by some processing as prima facie it appears to be so, it is plain that market fee can be charged only on the purchase of .Khar wood and not on the sale of Catechu. [D, F1 E G .H 13. The owner of the jungle wherefrom the wood is cut and brought will be a producer within the meaning of the Act and the licensee·producer of that wood would be a purchaser of an agricultural produce within the meaning of sub-clause (2) of section 17(iii) (b) of the Act liable to pay market fee. 'It matters little what use is made of the wood by him. The question of quid pro quo and service cannot be decided by a dichotomy of service to every payer of fee as held in Kewal Krishan Puri's case. The i;oo.tter has to be judged in a broad sense and not in the sense of rendering •trvice to every individuill payer of the fee. (133 B-C] i4. In group A·VI Spices are mentioned including certain Kirana items such as Ripe Chillies, Sonf, turmeric etc. They are sold by the Kirana dealers. Sometimes they purchase them from the agriculturists in the same market area. In relation to those transactions they will be liable to pay market fee under sub~clause (2) of section 17(iii)(b). More often the.o not such articles are brought from outside and sold by the Kirana merchants. If they are sold to consumers, no market fee can be levied in view of the proviso added in the year 1979. If they are sold in wholesale, then the transaction can be subjected to the levy of market fee because in a particular market area they enter into the first transaction of sale in respect of the specified agricultural produce. [133 E-F] 15. Market fee can be charged on transaction of tobacco as it is included in group A-V of the notification. Similar is the position in regard to tendu leaves which is mentioned in group E. Bidi cannot be treated as an agricuJ· tural produce as it is not an admixture of tobacco and tendu leaves within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Act. But if a Bidi manufacturer purchases tobacco and tendu leaves in the market area and uses them in the manufac-- ~.· I }- I • RAMESH CHANDRA V. U. P. STATE 111 ture of bidi, he will be liable to pay market fee in relation to the transaction of tobacco and tendu leaves. [133 Q.134 Al 16. Market fee can be levied on the first transaction of rab taking place in any market area in accordance with any of the sub-clause of section 17(iii)(b), as may be applicable. It cannot be again charged on the second 1i1Ul8action of rab galawat or rab salawat even assuming that it is rah. (134 F] 17. If goods are merely brought in any market area and are despatched outside it without any transaction of sale taking place therein, then no market fee can be charged. If the bringing of the goods in a particular market area and their despatch therefrom are as a result of transactions of purchase and sale taking place outside the market area, it is plain that no fee can be levied. [135 BJ 18(i) Producer as defined in clause (p) of section 2 is not required to take any licence for selling his agriccltural produce nor is he required to pay market fee under any of the sub-clauses of section 17(iii) (b). But if he is a producer-trader in the sense explained above, then he will be required tO take out a licence in accordance withs. 9(2) of the Act and no body can be permitted to carry on any trade in agricultural produce in the market area without a valid licence. [135 E] The proviso to clause (p) of s. 2 will be attracted only if a question arises as to whether any person is a producer or not for the purposes of the Act and in that event the decision of the Director made after an inquiry conducted in the manner prescribed by the Rules shalt be final. If a question arises whether a pernon is merely & producer or producer-trader the Director will have no power to decide this question. Such a question will have· to be decided by the Market Committee itself which will be subject to the final decision of a court of law. [135 G-H] (ii) The traders cannot escape their li;ibility to pay the fee on account of their default of taking out licencea. [136 DJ 19. Market fee can be charged only on the transactions of purchase of wood and if a manufacturer of match-sticks purchases wood from the produc-- er for the purpose Of manufacturing the sticks he will be required to pay market fee on such purchase of wood only and not on the sale of matchsticks or match boxes. Similarly market fee Will be leviQbte on the transaction of purchase of soye.bin and not on transaction of sale of soyabin products. [136 El A B c D E F 20. Under sub-clause (1) of s. 17(iii)(b) of the Act when fruits and G vegetables are sold through a commission agent by the producer then Iha commission agent is lie.hie to pay the market fee and he can realise it from the purchaser of fruits and vegetables. The burden does not fall on the producer. The liability in the first instance is of the commission agent 9.l1d finally of the purchaser of the articles. [136 HJ 21. In the U.P. Act even traders under certain circumstances have been made liable to P"Y such fees. The argument that market fee can be charged only on those trausactions in which the seller is the producer of agricul' tural produce and not on any other transaction is devoid of substance. [138 CJ H A B c 112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R. Mangalchand Ramchandra and others etc. v. State of Bihar [1971] B.L J.R. 1038 approved. 22. If anything has been realised from the traders or any other person which goes contrary to this judgment the same should be refnnded by the Market Committee concerned within six months. The form of the order in relation to the refund of the market fee may vary from case to case depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. [138 DJ 23. Market fee due from the traders should be regularised and be charged in the light of this judgment, and paid within a period of six month. If there is any disputed question of fact to be decided by the Market Committee then it should be decided as quickly as possible leaving the person concerned to agitate the matter in a court of law, preferably, in the High Court, within a short time thereafter. [138 E-FJ CivIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1841-1846 of 1978. From the Judgment and Order dated 21-9-1978 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. Nos. 4846, 4436, 3815, 5040, 4475 D and 4587 /78. E F G AND CivIL APPEAL No. 871 of 1978. From the Judgment and Order dated 29-4-1977 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 1749 of 1974. AND CIVIL APPEAL No. 1921 OF 1978. From the Judgment and Order dated 21-9-1978 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 4566 of 1978. AND CIVIL APPEAL No. 1960 OF 1978. From the Judgment and Order dated 21·9~1979 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 4568/78. AND CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2169-2173 OF 1978. From the Judgment and Order dated 21-9-1978 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. Nos. 4542, 5589, 5592 to 5594/78. AND CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2178-2187 of 1978. D From the Judgment and Order dated 21-9-1978 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. Nos. 4921, 4625, 4449, 5002, 5003, 5007, 5068, 5069, 5284 and 4568 of 1978. • ....[ \ \ • • • ') .. ··----· RAMESH CHANDRA V. U; P. STATE 113 AND CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2219-2226 OF 1978 • From the Judgment and Order dated 21-9-1978 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. Nos. 5185 and 5059 of 1978. AND CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2269, 2302, 2373-2375 OF 1978. From the Judgment and Order dated 21-9-1979 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. Nos. 5193/78, 5192, 5010, 4584 and 4583 of 1978. AND CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 2321, 2322, 2356, 2359, 2386, 2406-2408, 2426-2428, 2430 & 2431, 2457, 2504, 2507/1978 and 142, 144, 174, 230, 385, 388, 429, 438, 599, 635, 745, 821, 929 & 1007, 1009/79, 1149, 1149A, 1346, 1630, 1636, 1638, 1863, 1865, 1866, 1867 & 1869/79 and 2270, 2272/78. From the Judgment and Order dated 21-9-1978 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. NQ>s. 5521, 4982, 5001, 4447/78, 4454, 2311, 5134, 3826, 4409, 4020, 5144, 5728, 5002, 4455/78, 6948, 4665, 4560, 4666, 4985,4449, 5540,4823,4619, 5150, 4588, 4593,4926,4947, 4948, 5012, 5062, 5088, 5089, 5191, 5539, 5106, 5097, 4833, 4911, 1398, 2114, 2515, 898/78, 5071, 5454, 5592, 5072, 5034, 4149, 5153, 5169, 5734/78, 4947/ 76, 5533/78, 3299/77, 4943, 4629/78 & 5194, 5195, 5196/79. AND CIVIL APPEAL No. 487 OF 1979. From the Judgment and Order dated 21-9-1978 of the Allahabad High Court in W.P. No. 4445 of 1978. AND WRIT PETITION Nos. 257 & 600 of 1979. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution). A B c D E F F. S. Nariman, R. F. Nariman and P. C. Bhartari for the Appellants G in CA Nos. 2260 & 2261. ... S. P. Gupta, H.K. Puri, V. K. Bahl and Miss Madhu Moo/chandani for the Appellants in CAs 1841 to 1846, 2426 to 2428, 929, 1007 to 1009, 1630, 2169 to 2172 and 1635. V. M. Tarkunde, G. B. Pai, Mrs. Saran Mahajan, Mr. Arvind B Kumar, Mrs. Lakshmi Arvind and R. K. Sinha for the Appellants in CA lfos. 2507, 2322, 2457 and 871. 114 SUPREl\fE COURT REPORTS [1980] 3 S.C.R. A Shanti Bhushan, S. P. Gupta, H. K. Puri and Miss Madhu Moo/· chandani for the Appellants in CA 174. " L. N. Sinha, S. S. Ray, Ghayyas Alam and R. K. Jain for the Appe- ~ llants in CA 2269, 2270 to 2272. Shanti Bhushan, Subhash Chandra Bir/a and Shreepal Singh for the B Appellants in 2373, 2302, 2374, and 2375. ~ Yogeshwar Prasad and Mrs. Rani Chabra for"the Appellants'in'CA 599, 142 to 144, 385, 1638, 2219 to 2226, 1921, 1960, 2173, 2178, 2180 to 2187, 2179, 386 to 388, 429 to 438 and W. P. 257. c Pramod Swarup for the Appellants in CAs Nos. 230, 2359, and _J 2386. P.R. Mridul ad All