M/s Raghav Food Products vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

According to the petitioner, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Haldwani has granted a license to him. The said license is on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Perusal of the license indicates that the license has been granted for running a mill and also for wholesale dealer for food-grains/pulses.

According to the petitioner, he imports pulses from other States after paying mandi fee to concerned States, however, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Haldwani has issued a demand notice requiring petitioner to deposit mandi fee. Thus, feeling aggrieved by demand notice, petitioner has approached this Court.

Ms. Monika Pant, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 has raised a preliminary objection that petitioner has a remedy of appeal under Section 28 of Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2011. She further submits that petitioner is not engaged in manufacture of pulses/legumes and he is simply engaged in sale and purchase of agricultural produce, therefore, he is liable to pay mandi fee as well as development cess to the concerned Mandi Samiti.

Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited and another v. State of Uttarakhand and others reported in (2016) 3 SCC 601, has struck down Section 27(c)(iii) of the aforesaid Act. Thus, according to him, Mandi Samiti cannot make any demand of mandi fee from the petitioner.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 submits that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has upheld the validity of Section 27(c)(iv) of the aforesaid judgment.

Since petitioner has a statutory remedy available under Section 28 of the Act, therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into merits of the case.

Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority within two weeks from today. If petitioner approaches the Appellate Authority within stipulated time, petitioner's appeal shall be heard and decided on merits.

For a period of three weeks, status quo, as of today, shall be maintained.