Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1682/2013 on 22 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 22nd DAY OF MARCH, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 1682 OF 2013
BETWEEN:
M/s Raghav Food Products ......Petitioner
(Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Senior Advocate, assisted by
Mr. Ankush Negi, Advocate)
AND:
State of Uttarakhand & another .....Respondents
(Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, Deputy Advocate General for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent no. 1 and Ms. Monika Pant, Advocate for
respondent no. 2)
JUDGMENT
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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. For a period of three weeks, status quo, as of
today, shall be maintained.
(MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.)
Navin
