ERODE TURMERIC MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, ERODE vs PERIYAR MARKET COMMITTEE

IT is not necessary to give in detail the averments of the parties as we are of the opinion that the present complainant is barred by the principles analogous to the principle of res judicata. We may, however, give the facts in brief. To provide better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural products and for the establishment and administration of its trade in the State of Tamil Nadu, an act called "Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1957 was enacted in the larger interest of general public and particularly for the interests of the merchants who are in the aforesaid trade. The said Act has now been replaced by the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987. IT provides for the constitution of Market Committees u/Section 18 of the Act, 1953. The Market Committees were earlier empowered under the old Act to levy a fee in any notified area at the rate not exceeding 0.45 paise for every Rs. 100/- of aggregate amount for which the notified agricultural products bought or sold whether in cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration. Section 24 of the new Act has empowered the Marketing Committee to levy fee not less than Re. 1/- for every Rs. 100/-. Vide letter Agricultural Department TNVV (3) GO No. F 39 & 40 dated 23.1.91, the Government informed the traders that in respect of the scheduled commodities purchased from agriculturists, the agricultural Cess has been increased from 0.45 paise per Rs. 100/- to Re. 1/- per Rs. 100/-. This increased rate came into effect from 1.2.1991. The Pariyar Market Committee (Regulated Market), Erode-3 vide letter dated 29.1.1991 informed the traders within their jurisdiction about the said increase.

THE Members of the complainant Association deal in turmeric and other agricultural products and are dealers in such goods. Aggrieved by the alleged arbitrary provisions and particularly arbitrary increase of the market fee from 0.45 paise to Re. 1/- on the purchase price of Rs. 100/-, the complainant Association on behalf of the its Members filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the High Court of judicature at Madras challenging the provisions of the enactment. Several other writ petitions were also filed challenging the various provisions of the new Act as well as the increase in the market fees on the ground that the Marketing Committees were not rendering any service. Petitions were dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 28.4.94. The complainants'' case is that in the present case they are not challenging the increase in Cess and also not challenging the provisions of the Act. Their main grievance is that no service is being provided by the Marketing Committee, Pariyar (Erode).

On being noticed, the opposite parties i.e., Pariyar Market Committee (Regulated Market), Erode and the State of Tamil Nadu filed a counter inter-alia alleging that the present complaint is barred by the principle of res judicata as the complainant had earlier approached the High Court in regard to the grievance put forward in the present complaint and the High Court has held that service is being rendered by the answering Market Committee and the levy of market fee is valid and legal. This plea has force.

THE complainants in para 12 of their complaint have pleaded : "THE complainants'' main grievance before the High Court as well as before this Commission is that increasing the market fee from 0.45 paise per Rs. 100/- to Re. 1 /- per Rs. 100/- from 1991 vide G.O. MS., at Annexure -A dated 29.1.91 with rendering any service to them. THE main grievance of the complainant is that no service is provided to the complainant though they are increasing the market fee and that is only grievance before the High Court and before this Commission. THE High Court without going into this aspect of the complainants writ petition dismissed the same alongwith the batch of writ petitions."

Thus, from the above, it is clear that the grievance put forward by the complainant before the High Court that no services are being rendered by the Periyar Market Committee, is being again agitated by means of this complaint. In the order dismissing the various writ petitions, the High Court remarked : "26. It is relevant to point out that the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1959 originally provided for levy of 45 paise at the maximum per every hundred rupees transaction and this rate had been in existence till 1974. It is only in 1991 after the introduction of the present Act and Rules the levy has been increased to one rupee. Thus from 1962 to 1991 for nearly three decades there has been no increase in the matter of levy and collection of market fee, inspite of the fact that the market committees were rendering various services to the purchasers and traders. When the petitioners did not challenge the levy of market fee at 45 paise per every hundred rupees transaction from 1982 to 1991, there is absolutely no basis for challenging the increase in the rate of market fee from 45 paise to one rupee in 1991 when the value of 45 paise in 1962 is certainly more than one rupee as on today.

It must be pointed out that the levy of market fee under Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act is correlated to the purposes mentioned in Section 30 of the Act. All the monies received by the market committee from the traders as market fee had to be paid into a fund called market committee fund under Section 29 of the Act. All the expenditure incurred by the market committee under and for the purposes of the Act have to be defrayed out of the said fund and any surplus remaining after such expenditure has to be invested in the manner prescribed under Sub-section (2) of Section 29 every market committee has to pay to the State Government out of its fund the cost of any special or additional staff employed by the Government with their consultation. THE purposes for which the proceeds of the market committee fund can be expended are set out in Section 30 of the Act. THE purposes mentioned in Section 30, namely acquisition of site for the market, establishment, maintenance and improvement of the market, construction of buildings, maintenance of standard weights and measures which are extremely beneficial to the growers and the traders. THEre is no material placed on record by the petitioners to show that the market committee are rendering no service. For all the reasons stated above, and in view of the factual materials available on record, we are of the view, that the contention that the increase in the market fee levied by the market committee under Sub-section (1) of Section 24 from 45 paise to one rupee is illegal and invalid on the ground that there is no quid pro quo, i.e., there is no correlation between the increase in the rate of market fee and the services rendered cannot be countenanced and it must fail."

From the above observations of the High Court it is clear that the High Court found that services are being rendered by the market committees including the Periyar Market Committee (Regulated Market). Even in the application of interim stay the complainant had pleaded : "Since the petitioners contention right from the beginning was not to pay fee but their contention was that the Regulated Market Committee without rendering any services even at the rate of 0.45 paise per Rs. 100/-, they have increased the market fee to Re. 1/- per Rs. 100/-. There was no quid pro quo as per Section 30 of the Act. Therefore, the petitioners agitated the matter before the Hon''ble High Court but the Hon''ble High Court by disposing of the batch of writ petitions not at all considered the matter independently and individually the petitioner''s case on merit".

If the High Court did not consider the grievances of the present complainant independently and individually the complainants had remedy to file appeal before the Supreme Court. In fact Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioners are precluded from alleging that their grievances were not heard by the High Court or that services are not being rendered by the Periyar Market Committee.

HENCE, we are of the opinion that the complainant Association cannot be permitted to re-agitate the same matter before this Commission. Accordingly, we dismiss the present complaint with cost which we assess at Rs. 2,000/- Complaint dismissed with costs.