WP/28540/1998 of M/s. Sacheen Industries, Vs Agricultural Market Committee, on 27 December 2007

ORDER:

This writ petition is filed by the petitioners seeking todeclare that the orders of the second respondent dated07.09.1998 vide Proceedings No.884/93-94/537 andProceedings No.884/94-95/540 are highly illegal,improper, arbitrary and violative of principles of naturaljustice and consequently to direct fresh enquiry and verifyall the account books and records relating to theassessment year 1993-94 and 1994-95 and reassess theassessment and to pass such other orders as the Courtdeems fit.

The petitioner is contending that the Secretary,Agricultural Market Committee, Bhainsa, Adilabad District,passed an assessment order, against which, he preferredan appeal before the Director of Marketing, Government ofAndhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, who in turn passed an orderon 07.11.1996. In the said order, he observed that detailed verification of the records is to be caused and thecounsel for the petitioners has agreed to produce theevidence of payment of market fee on cotton sent throughbailing units. Detailed evidence to qualify suchexemptions shall have to be produced to the marketcommittee. The market committee shall accordingly raisethe demand within a period of one month from the date ofreceipt of the order. Till then, the petitioners may beallowed to continue their transactions duly paying theassessed market fee in the proceedings under best ofjudgment plus interest thereon at the rate of 12% perannum. In pursuance of the said order, the petitionermade a representation on 31.08.1998 stating that theaccounts are not being verified and requested to verify thesame to reassess the market fee after due enquiry andverify the books of accounts and other related documentsexpressing their readiness to produce the accounts andevidence for fresh assessment. After the saidrepresentation, the Market Committee passed the order,dated 07.09.1998, wherein there is no mention about theverification of the records, but it was observed that thepetitioners failed to produce any evidence before theMarket Committee within the time limit fixed by the Directorof Marketing and produce any record of the accountswithin the time limit. Therefore, the question ofreassessment of the demand does not arise.

In pursuance of the direction given by the Director ofMarketing, the second respondent ought to have given anopportunity by serving a notice on the petitioners toproduce records and after verification, the order ought tohave been passed. Though it is mentioned that thepetitioners failed to produce the evidence, there is no mention as to when they were served with notice andwhen the date was fixed directing them to produce therecords. In the absence of such details, the order cannotbe sustained. The order of the second respondent dated07.09.1998 is therefore set aside.

In the result, the writ petition is allowed and thematter is remitted to the second respondent directing himto issue notice to the petitioners to produce relevantrecords by fixing a particular date and by obtainingacknowledgment regarding the date of hearing. Despitethat, if the petitioners fail to produce the accounts, thesecond respondent is at liberty to pass appropriate ordersand on the other hand, if the petitioners produce recordsor any evidence, the second respondent shall examinethe same and pass appropriate orders after verifying therecords. No costs.

VGB

_______________

27.12.2007