RAMESH CHANDRA ETC versus STATE OF U.P. ETC.

RAMESH CHANDRA ETC versus STATE OF U.P. ETC.

Declaration of large areas as Market Areas under section 6 is valid; minimum market fee fixation is lawful if services are rendered; retrospective imposition of fee by statute is valid; levy of market fee is limited to one transaction in relation to the same produce and not duplicated for processed products or subsequent sales; fee not restricted to licensees only, and both producers and producer-traders have obligations differing under the Act.

Parties
Appellant/petitioner: Ramesh Chandra etc.; Respondent: State of U.P. etc.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 March 1980
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals and Writ Petitions / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeals and writ petitions partly allowed and partly dismissed.
Legal Topics
Market Fee Levy, Validity of Notification, Market Committees, Retrospective Legislation, Services by State, Licensing
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Taxation Agricultural Law Market Fee Levy Validity of Notification Market Committees Retrospective Legislation +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ramesh Chandra etc.

Appellant/petitioner

State of U.P. etc.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals and Writ Petitions / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether declaration of large areas as Market Areas under the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 is lawful.
  2. 2 Whether Market Committees had been validly constituted and whether the levy of market fee is legal.
  3. 3 Whether retrospective operation of the amendments and imposition of market fee is valid.

Ratio Decidendi

Declaration of large areas as Market Areas under section 6 is valid; minimum market fee fixation is lawful if services are rendered; retrospective imposition of fee by statute is valid; levy of market fee is limited to one transaction in relation to the same produce and not duplicated for processed products or subsequent sales; fee not restricted to licensees only, and both producers and producer-traders have obligations differing under the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeals and writ petitions partly allowed and partly dismissed.

Orders

  • If any fee was wrongly realized contrary to this judgment, it should be refunded by Market Committee within six months.
  • Fee due in light of judgment should be paid within six months.