M/S. Subbhash Chander Kamlesh … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 March, 1990 – Case Summary

In the case of M/S. Subbhash Chander Kamlesh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 9 March, 1990, the Punjab-Haryana High Court was tasked with determining the nature and degree of quid pro quo (one thing in return for another) between the fee realized and the cost of services rendered. This case was one among a series of writ petitions challenging the vires of market fee levied under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961.

Facts of the Case

The petitioner-firm, dealing in Gur, Shakkar, and Khandsari in retail as well as wholesale, brought these items from the State of Uttar Pradesh and other states and sold them at a shop in Old Grain Market at Moga. The business premises of the petitioner were situated outside the principal market yard and sub-market yard but within the notified market area. The petitioner argued that no services of any kind were rendered by the respondent-market Committee to the petitioner and other dealers falling in the same category. The petitioner did not use any road constructed by the Market Committee. The roads used were built and maintained by the Municipal Committee, Moga, or the P.W.D. Lighting arrangements on those roads were provided by the Municipal Committee. The other civic amenities were also provided by the Municipal Committee.

Issues Raised

The principal question raised was whether a substantial portion of the amount of fee must be shown to be actually, distinctly, and primarily spent for the benefit of the payer or whether a broad and general correlationship between the fee and the services satisfied the crucial test. The petitioner challenged the vires of various provisions of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not liable either to obtain a license under the Act or to pay market fee, as the Market Committee did not render any services at all to the petitioner and others of his class.

Court’s Observations

The court observed that the question of quid pro quo was common to a number of writ petitions. The court also noted that the petitioner-firm was dealing in Gur, Shakkar, and Khandsari in retail as well as wholesale. The petitioner brought these items from the State of Uttar Pradesh and other states and sold them at a shop in Old Grain Market at Moga. The court also noted that the business premises of the petitioner were situated outside the principal market yard and sub-market yard but within the notified market area.

The court also observed that the petitioner did not use any road constructed by the Market Committee. The roads used were built and maintained by the Municipal Committee, Moga, or the P.W.D. Lighting arrangements on those roads were provided by the Municipal Committee. The other civic amenities were also provided by the Municipal Committee.

The court also noted that the petitioner challenged the vires of various provisions of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act primarily on the ground that the petitioner was not liable either to obtain a license under the Act or to pay market fee, as the Market Committee did not render any services at all to the petitioner and others of his class.

The court’s observations were based on the facts of the case, the issues raised, and the arguments presented by both sides. The court’s decision was based on its interpretation of the law and its application to the facts of the case.

The court’s observations and decision in this case provide valuable insights into the interpretation and application of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, and the concept of quid pro quo in the context of market fees. The case also highlights the importance of the provision of services by market committees in justifying the levying of market fees.