K.S. Agrawal vs The Tribunal And Assistant ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 122 Bom

JUDGMENT

1. Heard Counsel.

2. This petition is directed against an Award passed by the adjudicating Tribunal appointed under Section 57 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as the Act). Few facts, which are undisputed may be noted to understand the controversy involved in this case and the question of law of some importance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. The petitioners is a partnership business dealing in cotton. The respondent no.2 is an Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Darwha. The respondent no.3 is working as a broker (Aadatya) or Commission Agent, within the jurisdiction of the Respondent No.2-Committee. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are agriculturists, who sell their agricultural produce within the Market Committee, using the respondent no.3, as their Aadatya or Commission agent. The respondent no.1 is the Tribunal, constituted under section 57 of the Act. It is presided over by the Assistant Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Yavatmal.

4. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5 through the agency of respondent no.3, allegedly sold certain cotton, which is an agricultural produce, to the petitioners. It is then alleged that certain payments of the price of cotton was not received by the Commission agent and he, therefore, filed an application purportedly under Section 57 of the Act, for recovery of this sum. The application is filed by the respondent no.3 in his capacity as a commission agent and not as a constituted agent or attorney of the respondent nos. 4 & 5. In the applications made for recovery by the respondent no.3, there is a clear mention that the agricultural produce belonging to respondent nos. 4 & 5 was sold through the Aadat of the respondent no.3. It is, therefore, undisputed factual position that the agricultural produce belonged to the respondent nos. 4 & 5. It was sold in the market Committee and then it is alleged that certain sums payable to them have not been paid by the petitioner. The application for recovery of sum under Section 57 is not made either by respondent no.4 or 5. The application as made the respondent no.3 nowhere states that it is made by him for and on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 & 5.

5. These applications were forwarded by respondent no.2-Committee to the respondent No.1-Tribunal, for recovery and the Tribunal, after having issued initial notice, proceeded ex parte against the petitioners and awarded the sum claimed by the respondent no.3. It is this Award, which is impugned by this petition by the petitioners.

6. Shri V.M.Deshpande, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the award is unsustainable in law for the following reasons :-

(i) Principles of natural justice have been violated as the petitioner was proceeded ex parte without any cause and no opportunity was given to him to point out the non maintainability of the proceedings before the Tribunal

(ii) The application under Section 57 for recovery is not maintainable at the instance of a Commission agent and consequently, all further proceedings are vitiated;

(iii) The Tribunal constituted under Section 57 of the Act, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a claim, not made by an agriculturist or by Agricultural Produce Market Committee.

7. In the instant case, the claim having been made by the Commission agent, the tribunal did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the existence of the amount or recovery thereof. The proceedings, therefore, are liable to be quashed for lack of jurisdiction. The contentions raised by Shri Deshpande will have to be considered in the light of the provisions of the Act. Section 57 is, therefore, requires to be considered in extenso to examine the arguments made by the learned counsel. Section 57 reads thus :-

"57.(1)Every sum due from a Market Committee to the State Government shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue.

(2)Any sum due to a Market Committee or account of any charge, costs, expenses, fees, rent, or on any other account under the provisions of this Act or any rule or bye-law made thereunder(or any sum due to an agriculturist for any agricultural produce, sold by him in the market area which is not paid to him as provided by or under this Act, shall be recoverable from the person from whom such sum is due, in the same manner as an arrear of land revenue.

(3)If any question arises whether a sum is due to the market Committee(or any agriculturist within the meaning of sub-section(2),) it shall be referred to a Tribunal constituted for the purpose which shall after making such enquiry as it may deem fit, and after giving to the person from whom it is alleged to be due an opportunity of being heard, decide the question; and the decision of the Tribunal shall be final and shall not be called in question in any court or other authority.

(4)The State Government may constitute one or more Tribunals consisting of the Collector who has jurisdiction over the market area;

Provided that, the State Government may, if in its opinion it is necessary so to do in any case constitute a Tribunal consisting of one person other than the Collector (possessing the prescribed qualifications who is not connected with the Market Committee or with the person from whom the sum is alleged to be due)

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

8. It will be seen from this section referred to above, that all sums due from a Market Committee to the State Government, can be recovered as land revenue. Similar provision is made in sub-section(2) in relation to any sum due to a Market Committee from any one, as also any sum due to agriculturists for any agricultural produce sold by him in the market area, which is not paid to him may also be recovered as land revenue. Then sub-section(3) provides that if any question arose as to whether a sum is due to the market committee or an agriculturist within the meaning of sub-section (2) it shall be referred to a Tribunal, constituted for the purpose. Then sub-section(4) provides for the constitution of a Tribunal. It will be seen from the provisions of sub-section(2) that what is recoverable as land revenue under Section 57 is any sum due to an agriculturist for any agricultural produce sold by him in the market area, which is not paid to him. It is, therefore obvious that the sum must be payable to an agriculturist for it being recovered as land revenue. A sum payable to a Commission Agent cannot, by very plain reading of the provisions of Section 57(2), be recovered via a Tribunal. There is no statement in the application made by the respondent no.3 that the sum was payable to him, nor is there any statement that it was payable to respondent Nos. 4 & 5. Obviously, it appears that it was payable to the respondent Nos. 4 & 5, if at all anything was due factually, but in any event the application of respondent no.3 for recovery of this money under Section 57, itself was not maintainable. No further proceedings, could therefore be commenced at the instance of a person, who is Commission agent under the provisions of the Act, for recovery as land revenue of any sum due to such commission agent, even if it is assumed that such sum was due to him and consequently, the respondent no.1 erred in referring the matter for recovery to the Collector or the Tribunal for adjudication. The entire proceedings are vitiated for total lack of an authority under Section 57 to recover the amount as land revenue. On this ground alone, the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

9. It will be seen from the provisions of Section 57 of the Act, as quoted above, that when a dispute arose as to what is the sum due that the matter shall be referred to the Tribunal. Reference in instance case was without jurisdiction and, therefore, void for the reason that it was a dispute between the Commission agent and the petitioner which is not covered by the provisions of Section 57(2) of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, had no jurisdiction, whatsoever, to adjudicate upon the claim made by the respondent no.3. The proceedings, being void ab initio, are liable to be quashed for this reason also.

10. Sub-section(3) of Section 57 provides that the Tribunal, shall give an adequate opportunity to the person against whom the due is claimed. The Tribunal is, therefore, duty bound to grant said opportunity which must be reasonable in nature to prove that there is no due. From the impugned award it is obvious that such an opportunity was not granted to the petitioner. The adjudication by the Tribunal, without granting statutory opportunity, as engrafted in sub-section(3) of Section 57, is, therefore, vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice. On this ground also, the impugned Award is liable to be set aside.

11. Viewed from any point, therefore, the impugned award is unsustainable in law. The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim by the Commission agent/Broker, individually, under the provisions of the Act, and the proceedings, therefore, were entirely without jurisdiction, same are liable to be quashed.

12. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clauses (A) and (B). The Award dated 4.10.1985 is quashed. There will be no order as to costs.