The Agricultural Produce Market ... vs The Assistant Registrar, ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 1253 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.K. Batta, J.

1. The petitioner Agricultural Produce Market Committee sent cases for recovery of market fee, supervision charges etc. to the Tribunal under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter called, the "A.P.M.C. Act"). However, the respondent No. 1, Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Tumsar returned the said cases in pursuance of the communication of the respondent No. 3 Director of marketing with a direction to deposit the arbitration fees chargeable under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The petitioner represented to the concerned Authorities that the fees payable under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act could not be levied in such cases since neither the said A.P.M.C. Act nor the Rules provide for charging of fees as contemplated by the respondents. Inspite of this, the respondents continued to toe their line of thought and directed the petitioner to deposit the fees so that the references made under Section 57 of the A.P.M.C. Act could be examined further. The petitioner has, therefore, approached this Court seeking the following reliefs :-

(1) Declare that the demand by the respondents from the petitioner to make payment of Fee prescribed under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act in respect of references sent by the petitioner Market Committee to the respondent No. 1 Tribunal is without authority of law and arbitrary.

(ii) Be further pleased to quash and set aside the demand of the respondents to make the payment of fee prescribed under Section 91 of the M.C.S. Act in respect of references made by the petitioner under Section 57 of the A.P.M.C. Act.

(iii) Be pleased to direct the respondent No. 1 to proceed with the references made by the petitioner Market Committee under Section 57 of the A.P.M.C. Act and after deciding the references, recover the cost from the party, against whom reference is decided....

2. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents and they were informed that the petition shall be taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. We have heard learned Advocate for petitioner and learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. The respondents have relied upon Circular dated 6th June, 1980 issued by the Director of Marketing, Pune to the Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies seeking clarification and the following clarification was given :-

(3) In the absence of any clear cut provisions in the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 regarding expenses of the Tribunal, the scale of expenses prescribed by Registrar in cases of disputes under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 be made applicable. You may however, make suitable suggestions in this behalf, after gaining experience, so that appropriate scale can be prescribed. Expenses recovered should be credited into Government Treasury.

It is to be noted that till todate appropriate scale has not been prescribed under the said Act or the Rules framed thereunder.

4. The controversy in this petition centres around Section 57(5) of the A.P.M.C. Act, which reads as under :-

Except as otherwise directed by the Tribunal in the circumstances of any case, the expenses of the Tribunal shall ordinarily be born by the party against whom a decision is given.

This provision, in our opinion, is explicit and provides that the expenses of the Tribunal shall ordinarily be borne by the party against whom a decision is given. Neither the said Act nor the Rules framed thereunder provide for extending the provisions of Section 91 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act for the purpose of determining the expenses under Section 57(5) of the A.P.M.C. Act. How the Authorities insisted on deposit of the arbitration fees under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is neither understood nor the same could be explained by the learned Government Pleader on behalf of the State. There is no provision under which the petitioner could be directed to deposit the expenses along with references made under Section 57 of the A.P.M.C. Act. What Section 57(5) of the A.P.M.C. explicitly provides is that the expenses of the Tribunal shall be ordinarily borne by the party against whom a decision is given. Therefore, the question of calculation of the expenses and payment of the same by the petitioner along with references under Section 57 of the A.P.M.C. Act does not arise and these expenses will have to be determined when the references are decided and the same are to be ordinarily borne by the party against whom a decision is given. Therefore, the insistence on the part of the respondents to deposit the expenses prescribed under Section 91 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, at the time of filing of the references, is clearly not sustainable. It goes without saying that the respondents shall be entitled to determine the expenses of the Tribunal in terms of Section 57(5) of the A.P.M.C. Act.

5. In view of the above, petition is bound to succeed and is hereby allowed in terms of prayer Clauses (i) to (iii). No costs.