M/S Ramkrishna Industries A ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 16761 MP

                                                       1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                 AT G WA L I O R
                       BEFORE
      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK

           ON THE 10th OF OCTOBER, 2023

           WRIT PETITION No. 23262 of 2023

BETWEEN:-
M/S   RAMKRISHNA     INDUSTRIES   A
PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM THROUGH OM
PRAKASH PATODIYA S/O LATE SHRI
BADRILAL PATODIYA, AGED ABOUT 63
YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS NEAR
JAIPRAKASH    MANCH    MADHAVGANJ
DISTRICT VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                         .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI MAHESH GOYAL - ADVOCATE)

AND
   THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
   THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
1.
   VALLABH BHAWAN, DISTRICT BHOPAL
   (MADHYA PRADESH)
   M.P. STATE AGRICULTURE BOARD
   THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR
2.
   26 RERA HILLS KISAN BHAWAN
   BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SUB DIVISIONAL OFFICER/ OFFICIAL
   IN CHARGE OF KRISHI UPAJ MANDI
3.
   COMMITTEE     VIDISHA   (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
   KRISHI UPAJ MANDI COMMITTEE,
4. VIDISHA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY
   VIDISHA (MADHYA PRADESH)
   SECRETARY , KRISHI UPAJ MANDI
5. COMMITTEE     VIDISHA    (MADHYA
   PRADESH)
                                       .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI VISHAL TRIPATHI - GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR
                                                                   2

RESPONDENT/STATE)
(BY SHRI S.P. JAIN - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO. 4 AND
5)
      This petition coming on for admission this day, the court
passed the following:

                           ORDER

With consent heard finally.

1. The present petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner being crestfallen by the order dated 13.07.2023 passed by Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Vidisha, whereby proceedings under Section 19(4) of Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1972") was carried out and petitioner has been saddled with penalty of Rs.3,61,824/- and his right to carry on business has been prohibited. Against the said order, petitioner preferred appeal purportedly under Section 21(2) of the Act of 1972 but same has been rejected by SDO-cum-Official Incharge of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti on the point of maintainability.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner is a registered proprietorship firm indulged in the business of sale and purchase of agriculture produce in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vidisha under the trading licence granted purportedly under Section 32 of the Act of 1972. Respondent No. 4 is a Krishi Upaj Mandi Committee, Vidisha which grants licence to the traders. On the basis of an inspection allegedly carried out by the Committee, certain irregularities were found in terms of the documents maintained and the agriculture produce sold, therefore, notice was given on 6.6.2023 to produce the original record. Petitioner filed

the reply and rebutted the claim.

3. After considering the submissions, on 13.07.2023 Secretary of Mandi Committee passed impugned order and penalty of Rs.3,61,824/- was imposed over petitioner. His right to carry on trade activities was prohibited. Being aggrieved by the said order passed purportedly under Section 19 (4) of the Act of 1972, petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 21(2) of the Act of 1972 but same was rejected on the ground of maintainability. Therefore, petitioner is before this Court.

4. It is the submission of learned counsel for petitioner that impugned order dated 13.07.2023 suffers from the vice of misappreciation of facts and suffers from perversity. It is also submitted that remedy of appeal is always available to the petitioner but same has been rejected on the ground of maintainability whereas Section 59 appears to be revisional power available to the Managing Director or the State Government, as the case may be. Beside that Section 21(2) contemplates appeal and it is a remedy apparently provided in respect of proceedings carried out under Section 19 against any trader. Therefore, according to counsel for petitioner against any action taken under Section 19(4) of the Act of 1972, appropriate remedy is appeal under Section 21 (2) of the Act of 1972.

5. Learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 5 opposed the prayer. According to him all those exigencies which are provided in Section 21 are appealable under Section 21 (2) of the Act of 1972 and not beyond that. In the present case where order is passed under Section 19(4) of the Act of 1972, remedy of appeal is

provided in Section 59. He specifically submits that language of Section 59 does not indicate its existence as revisional jurisdiction but it is akin to appellate jurisdiction, and therefore, petitioner has remedy to file appeal under Section 59 of the Act. The appellate authority shall take care of all arguments in accordance with law and even in Section 59 (2), interim protection/stay can also be granted by the appellate authority. Therefore, it is appropriate for petitioner to file appeal as per Section 59 of the Act of 1972.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that he was pursuing his remedy before this Court for last one month, and therefore, question of delay, if any, comes then it may not hinder his right to prefer appeal and get decision on merits.

7. Learned counsel for respondent/State also opposed the prayer.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto.

9. This is a case where petitioner who is a licence holder of Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Vidisha is aggrieved by restrictions imposed over trading of agriculture produce and imposition of penalty. Section 19 falls under Chapter IV of the Act which deals in respect of Conduct of Business and Powers and Duties of Market Committee. Section 19 gives power to the Committee to levy market fee. 19 B refers default in payment of market fee. Therefore, mechanism is provided in Section 19 and consequences are referred in 19 B in respect of payment of market fee. This provision deals in respect of powers and duties of market committee.

10. So far as Section 20 and 21 are concerned, it is apparently in respect of conduct of business. Section 21 (2) gives remedy of appeal to the Market Committee, if best judgment assessment of fee is not appropriate or if the documents have been seized or retained by the Market Committee under Section 20. Although, Section 21 (2) provides remedy of appeal but as submitted by counsel for respondents and as per the scheme of Chapter IV of the Act of 1972, it appears that one has to reconcile that Section 21 (2) is in respect of Section 20 and 21 of the Act of 1972 and does not touch the aspects of Section 19 and 19 B. Therefore, one has to fall back on Section 59 treating it to be a remedy akin to appeal.

11. In any statute aggrieved party cannot be rendered remedy less and if the authorities have power to impose penalty/fine or take punitive action against an individual/firm/legal entity, then appellate jurisdiction is innate into the scheme of things. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case Section 59 is to be construed as appellate jurisdiction which not only provides remedy of appeal before Managing Director but also before the State Government also after the order is being passed by Managing Director and if any party is aggrieved by it. That subsequent remedy before State Government may be akin to revisional jurisdiction. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner has remedy of appeal under Section 59 (1) of the Act of 1972 before Managing Director of M.P. State Agriculture Marketing Board and he shall decide the said appeal in accordance with law like a regular appeal on merits.

12. Since petitioner consumed much of his time here, therefore,

no question of delay exists if petitioner files regular appeal along with stay application before the appellate authority within 15 days from today. If such appeal is preferred within 15 days from today i.e. on or before 26.10.2023 then it shall be heard on its own merits. Before deciding the appeal, appellate authority shall consider the application for stay at the earliest and thereafter decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of submission of appeal without being influenced by any observation of this Court.

13. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner press for interim relief.

14. Learned counsel for respondents opposed the prayer and submits that petitioner has not deposited any amount so far of the penalty amount, and therefore, at this stage, unless he deposits the penalty amount, no case for interim relief is made out.

15. Considering the rival submissions and fact situation, it is hereby clarified that if petitioner deposits Rs.1,50,000/- (One Lac Fifty Thousand only) on or before 26.10.2023 and file receipt along with the appeal memo, then he shall be allowed to carry on trading activities in accordance with law, otherwise not. In case of non-deposit of amount, petitioner shall be at liberty to press his stay application before appellate authority as per law.

16. Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

(ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE VAN

VANDANA VERMA 2023.10.10 19:52:21 +05'30'