ORDER
A.G. Qureshi, J.
1. The petitioners by this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seek a direction by writ of mandamus against the respondent for performing its part of duty in regard to Mandi yard in respect of the petitioners as provided under section 17 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam and not to levy or collect the market fee as required by section 19 of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam till such facilities are provided in the Mandi. The second prayer of the petitioners is to quash the notice Ex.P-10 issued against the petitioners by the Mandi Committee asking them to show cause as to why their licences be not suspended.
2. The petitioners are businessmen doing the business within the premises of the Krishi Upaj Mandi, Sarangpur. According to them the respondent Mandi Committee is not fulfilling the duties imposed upon it under section 17 of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam (for brevity the Adhiniyam). The duties are mandatory in nature and the fee cannot be recovered in view of the quid pro quo principle, unless they rendered the mandatory services to the petitioners. According to the petitioners there is no maintainance and management of the market yard and necessary facilities for marketing the agricultural produce have not been provided. There is no regulation of opening and closing of trading in the market yard and the Committee has not acquired any movable or immovable property for efficiently carrying out its duties. The petitioners made repeated requests to the Mandi Committee for providing such facilities to the petitioners, but this did not have any effect on the respondent except that it infuriated them resulting in show cause notice Annexure-X asking the petitioners to show cause as to why their licences be not cancelled.
3. In reply to the show cause notice the Mandi Committee has stated that they have already constructed office, three open auction platforms have also been constructed and arrangements for weighing of the agricultural produce have also been made near the platforms. The boundary walls have also been constructed and two rooms adjacent to the office have been provided for storing the agricultural produce, as there are five rooms in the office, out of which only three rooms are used for office purposes. It has been averred by the Mandi Committee that the committee is providing all, which is within its means for the proper running of the business of the agricultural produce in the Mandi and also providing facilities to the buyers and sellers who come to the Mandi, such as drinking water and toilet etc. Godowns are under construction and they are likely to be completed soon. As regards the notices it has been stated that they have already been withdrawn.
4. With the consent of the learned counsel for both the parties the matter was finally heard. It is now not in dispute that the notices issued against the petitioners by the respondent have been withdrawn and, therefore, the relief sought by the petitioners pertaining to the cancellation of the notices has already been granted to them.
5. As regards providing of facilities, it is manifest that most of the facilities in the Mandi has been provided by the Mandi Committee in accordance with the mandate contained in section 17 of the Adhiniyam and we do hope and expect that the Mandi Committee shall expeditiously work in the direction of providing all the necessary facilities which have not been provided to the buyers and sellers.
6. As regards the non-payment of fee for want of adequate facilities being provided by the Mandi Committee, it is to be noted that the quid pro quo element in respect of fee has undergone a transformation in recent years. The Supreme Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Mohd. Yasin, AIR 1983 SC 617, has held that in view of the earlier decisions of this Court there is no generic difference between a tax and a fee, though broadly a tax is compulsory exaction as part of a common burden, without promise of any special advantages to classes of tax payers, whereas a fee is a payment for services rendered, benefit provided or conferred. Compulsion is not the hallmark of the distinction between a tax and a fee. Though a fee must have relation to the services rendered such relation need not be direct. A mere casual relation may be enough. The special benefit or advantage to the payers of the fee may even be secondary as compared with the primary motive of regulation in the public interest. The Court is not to assume the role of a cost accountant. It has not to weigh meticulously the cost of the services rendered against the amount of fees collected so as to evenly balance the two. A broad co-relationship is all that is necessary. Quid pro quo in the exact sense is not the one and only true index of a fee nor is it necessarily absent in a tax.
7. Thereafter the Supreme Court again reiterated the same principle in Shreenivasa General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 1246 and M/s. Amarnath Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1985 SC 218. In the year 1985 itself the Supreme Court in the case of City Corporation of Calicut v. T. Sadasivan, AIR 1985 SC 756, has again followed the earlier decisions of the Supreme Court and held that it is not necessary to establish that those who pay the fee must receive direct benefit of the services rendered for which the fee is being paid general benefit from the authority levying the fee the element of service required for collecting fee is satisfied. It is not necessary that the person liable to pay must receive the same benefit or advantage for payment of the fee.
8. In the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court, it cannot be disputed that in every case of levy of fee the services rendered should not be weighed in terms of the cost of services against the amount of fee collected. If for regulation of a particular trade a Mandi Committee is established then a duty is cast upon such Committee to provide certain facilities and where the trade is regulated by the Committee along with the fact of providing some facilities to the traders and the farmers, then only because of providing of all the facilities which have been provided under section 17 of the Adhiniyam, would not deprive the Mandi Committee from recovery of fee which they are entitled to recover under the Adhiniyam. The law does not provide the levy of fee contingent upon providing all the services as contemplated under section 17 of the Adhiniyam. However, in view of the existence of the quid pro quo element in respect of levy of fee, it cannot be doubted that when a fee is levied there should be an element of service in return of the fee. However, it is not necessary that the benefit or service may be given or rendered directly. If in the regulation of marketing of the agricultural produce the Committee has provided facility of platforms, weighing, water and toilet etc., then only because of the fact that certain other facilities which are required under section 17 of the Adhiniyam have not been provided, would not deprive the Mandi Committee from levy and recovery of the Mandi fee. It, therefore, follows that the prayer of the petitioners for directing the Mandi Committee not to recover the Mandi fee cannot be allowed. However, we would like to observe that although the Mandi Committtee has in its averment stated that the Mandi Committee is working towards providing all the facilities at the Mandi, still they should prepare a time bound programme to provide the other facilities, as expeditiously as possible which may be within their means.
9. In view of the aforesaid, the petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed without any order as to costs.