10 April 2004	Saturday	19 Safar 1425

HYDERABAD, April 9: Sindh High Court, Hyderabad circuit bench, on Friday issued notices to the agriculture secretary, agriculture marketing director, a representative and two contractors of Dadu market committee on a petition, challenging the levy of market committee fees.

Six dealers of agriculture produce have filed a joint petition in the court, stating that the Sindh government had awarded respondent contractors the right to recover market fee in the jurisdiction of notified markets.

They said that the Dadu market committee had not established a market but without any lawful authority, had set up check-posts on roads at various places. They added that respondents were making forcible recovery on wheat, paddy, sugarcane and their bye-products although provisions of the Agriculture Produce Market Act (APMA) 1939 did not allow establishment of check-posts.

They said section 19 of the act authorised a market committee to levy fee on agriculture produce brought or sold in a notified area at rates provided in rule 29(11) but the recovery was being made at check-posts at exorbitant rates.

They said that the market committee had not provided any service as required under section 21 of the act. They claimed that the contractors, Ali Hassan Soho and Shoukat Ali Bhatti, were illegally charging the fee for flour, a by product of wheat, and rice and Kati, by products of paddy.

They said that they were ready to pay fee sanctioned by the market committee on sale and purchase of agricultural produce in a notified market but recovery was also being made from growers, who were exempted from payment of the same.

They stated that they purchased agriculture produce from licence-holding merchants who had already paid fee on sale of agricultural produce and argued that there could not be dual payment on same goods. They termed establishment of check posts on roads illegal and the recovery extortion, adding that respondents had not displayed rates as provided under rule 29(II) of the APMA 1939.

They prayed the court to the direct market committee to act according to law and display rates of market fee. They said that respondent contractors should also be directed to refund amounts charged in excess of sanctioned rates and they should also be directed to restrain from charging market fee on by products and from businessmen, who had purchased rice at rice factories.