Prakash Traders and Another vs Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and Others

R.K. Agrawal and Jayashree Tiwari, JJ.—We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

Petitioner No. 1 is the sole proprietorship firm of petitioner No. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the order dated 19th January, 2001, passed by the Director, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Parishad) and quashing the impugned notice dated 30th June, 2001, passed by the Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Ajhuwa, Koshambi (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) asking the petitioner to deposit Rs. 33,691 towards interest on the delayed collection of cheques towards market fee and development cess.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as follows:

The petitioners are carrying on business in scheduled commodities and hold licence/registration under the provisions of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. They have their place of business at Navin Mandi Asthal, Ajhuwa, district Kaushambi. During the period from 4.10.2000 to 31.5.2001, the petitioners made payment of market fee by cheques on various dates. The cheques were accepted and were sent for encashment process which took sometime, hence the Secretary of the Samiti had issued notice dated 30th June, 2001 calling upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 33,691 towards interest. We find that under Sub-rule (4) of Rule 68 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Niyamawali, 1965 which was applicable during the relevant period the payment of market fee and licence fee shall be made to the Committee in cash. Therefore, the petitioners ought to have deposited the market fee in cash and not by cheques. The only mode of payment was cash. The facility given by the authorities to the petitioners to make payment by cheques was without any statutory backing and cannot bind the Mandi Samiti. The date of making payment in cash, therefore, can only be the date on which the cheque has been encashed and, thus, the petitioners having deposited the market fee by cheques have clearly exposed themselves the liability of payment of interest. Had an option been given to the petitioners to pay market fee in cheques also then the encashment of cheques would have related back to the date of payment but it is not the position here. The demand of interest, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality.

The writ petition fails and is dismissed.