HYDERABAD, Oct 20: A division bench of Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit, has imposed a fine of Rs10,000 on petitioner, M/S Karachi Traders while observing that the petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands but just to avoid the payment of Market Committee fee.

The bench comprised Mr.Justice Shabbir Ahmed and Mr.Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali. The petition was filed by M/S Karachi Traders through its proprietor Nadeem Muhammad and Abdul Hai Khan Pathan represented the petitioner.

Secretary Agriculture and Food, Secretary Market Committee Hyderabad and DC Hyderabad were cited as respondents in the matter. The petitioner claimed that the Market Committees were functioning under the Agricultural Produce Market Act-V of 1939 and Rules 1940 framed thereunder.

He said that for the purpose of achieving and satisfying the objects as given in the preamble the respondents were required to establish/provide building, block of building enclosure or other area which may be notified in accordance with Rules under the the Act.

The petitioner said that such committees had constructed and established food grain markets in Jacobabad, Sukkur, Larkana, Kandhkot, Shahdadkot, Tando Adam, Mirpurkhas but the Market Committee of Hdyerabad had established no such thing.

Therefore, it was not entitled to collect/receive market fees unless it construct, provide, establish and notify a Food Grain Market as defined in the Act.

He claimed that the notification dated November 5,1983 was also not in conformity with the letter and spirit of section for of the Act as the provision required notification of ‘Market area’ and not the ‘Market Committee’ and as such the impugned notification had no value in the eye of law and the same was liable to be declared as illegal. He informed the court that the Secretary Agriculture and Food had not established a fair price shop nor acquired markets, warehouse, cold storage etc. and thereby failed to discharge its obligation, functions and duties under section 9 of the Act-V of 1939.

He said that as per notification by DC Hyderabad the petitioner was required to deposit all dues of market committee fee within seven days failing which action would be taken under Agricultural Produce Market Act and Rules.

He said that he had gone through the contents of notification under section 9 of the Agricultural Produce Market Act 1939 which was not in accordance with section 3 & 4 of the Act as such the respondent was not within its right to demand Market Committee Fee unless Food Grain Market was constructed.

He maintained that the said notification was not made public and published in official gazette whereby the affected persons could have been informed and submitted their objections.

The matter was brought to the notice of Divisional and Deputy Commissioners, Hyderabad, and the former directed the respondent that “they could recover tax from the businessmen in the Markets, constructed by them and in case any officer who was given contract for recovery of tax on roads would be arrested and sent to jail”. He said similar directives were issued by Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and added that fees and funds, collected under section 20 were not being utilised and spent for the purposes defined under section 21 sub-section (i), (ii) and (iii).

He said that the Market Committee, Hyderabad, had demanded payment of Rs20,000 within seven days as Market Committee Fees for period from March 27,1999 to July 20,1999 without calculations and details of transactions failing which the license shall not be renewed and may be suspended and cancelled and the amount would be recovered under Land Revenue Act through its collector.

It was inspite of the fact that the petitioner had conducted any business of sale and purchase during the said period.

He submitted before the court that the demand was illegal and without any lawful authority and claimed that the notifications do not meet the requirement of the sections 3 and 4 of the Act therefore any recovery under these sections was not warranted by law.

The Secretary Market Committee, in his comments rejected the petitioner’s allegations and defended the notifications saying they were issued in accordance with the law and were very much valid.