Gujrat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Limited and Another vs The State of Bihar and Others

Radha Mohan Prasad, J.—In this writ petition, the Petitioners have challenged the validity of notification dated 10.4.2001 issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Bihar, Patna (Respondent No. 3), whereby Amulspray and some other products have been included u/s 39 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') for levy of market fee as also for quashing of the notices dated 13.6.2001 and 21.7.2001 issued by the Secretary, Agricultural Produce Markets Committee, Mussalahpur, contained in Annexures 2 and 3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that inclusion of the products in the impugned notification will not entitle the Respondent-authorities for levying market lee without complying with the requirements as provided under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act. In this regard he has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Shree Prakash Singh v. The State of Bihar and Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 8483 of 2001) disposed of on 11th July, 2003. The Division Bench in the said case has upheld the inclusion of the product in the notification but has held that the inclusion of agricultural produce in the Schedule of the Act itself does not bring the aforesaid agricultural produce within the sweep of the Act for the purpose of licence and levying fees unless steps are taken under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act and a notification is issued u/s 4 of the Act with regard to agricultural produce included in the Schedule for the specified market area or areas.

It is not disputed by Mr. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Marketing Board/Committee that no steps under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act for the purpose of licence and revision of market fee has been taken with respect to the commodities included in the impugned notification. However, Mr. Ojha has submitted that the Board being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Division Bench filed SLP in the Supreme Court which is still pending consideration. Under such circumstances, he has fairly submitted that any order passed by this Court in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench may be made subject to final outcome of the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Accordingly, this writ application is allowed in part and the impugned notices, contained in Annexures 2 and 3, directing the Petitioners to get licence with regard to the said products for levy of market fee are hereby quashed.

However, it is needless to add that the decision of the Apex Court on the above question shall govern the case of the Petitioners also.