{"id":180519,"date":"2003-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003"},"modified":"2017-11-25T11:10:46","modified_gmt":"2017-11-25T05:40:46","slug":"agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"Agriculture Market Committee, … vs Rajam Jute And Oil Millers … on 25 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Agriculture Market Committee, … vs Rajam Jute And Oil Millers … on 25 February, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: A Kumar<\/div>\n
Bench: M.B. Shah, Arun Kumar<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  1495 of 1993\n\nPETITIONER:\nAgriculture Market Committee, Rajam & Anr.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRajam Jute and Oil Millers Association,\t Rajam\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/02\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nM.B. SHAH &  ARUN KUMAR\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J  U  D\t G  M  E  N  T<\/p>\n
ARUN KUMAR, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20th
\nFebruary, 1992 passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court
\nallowing the second appeal and decreeing the suit filed by the
\nplaintiff Association, respondent herein.  Briefly, the facts are
\nthat respondent filed a suit for declaration and injunction in the
\ncourt of Subordinate Judge, Rajam, District Srikakulam, Andhra
\nPradesh.  The plaintiff sought a declaration to the effect that the
\ndefendant – Market Committee had no right to levy, demand and
\ncollect any market fee from the members of the plaintiff –
\nAssociation. An injunction was also sought to restrain the
\ndefendant – Committee from collecting market fee from the
\nmembers of the plaintiff  – Association.  The case set up by the
\nplaintiff as per the plaint was that Rajam Sub-Taluk was under the
\njurisdiction of the Ponduru Agricultural Market Committee. On
\nRajam Sub-Taluk being upgraded as a Taluk, a separate
\nAgricultural Market Committee was constituted for the Rajam
\nTaluk with effect from 24th December, 1979.  The Market
\nCommittee was constituted under the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural
\n(Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to
\nas the ‘Act’).\tThe primary object of the Act is to establish a
\nmarket within a notified area.\tThe market committees which are
\nconstituted under the Act have to provide facilities like sheds,
\nstorage, accommodation, platforms, facilities for weighing and
\ngrading of the agricultural produce etc.  The Committee has also
\nto engage staff to supervise operations of the traders in the
\nmarket area.  The market committee is to ensure that transactions
\nin the specified commodities are for the benefit of purchasers and
\nsellers of such commodities.   In the process the committees are
\nsupposed to regulate the purchase and sale of agricultural
\nproduce by providing a market place and all the facilities
\nnecessary for proper conduct of the trade in agricultural produce
\nin the market place so as to eliminate the middleman and  to
\nensure healthy trade practices.\t By eliminating the middleman the
\ncommittee tries to protect the purchasers of such  agricultural
\nproduce, live stock etc. from exploitation and to ensure to them a
\nfair price for their produce.\n<\/p>\n
\tAccording to the plaintiff, the Market Committee had failed
\nto provide any facilities in the market area so much so even a
\nmarket yard had not been set up, no services or amenities were
\nbeing provided to the traders in the market area and therefore the
\nMarket Committee was not entitled to levy, demand and collect
\nthe market fee or cess from the members of the plaintiffs.  In the
\nwritten statement filed on behalf  of the  market committee, it was
\npointed out that the market committee was in its nascent stage, it
\nhad come into existence on the declaration of Rajam as a
\nseparate Taluk only on 24th December, 1979.  It had already
\ntaken possession of the site comprising 8.50 acres on 28th
\nNovember, 1981 for establishment of a market yard at Rajam by
\nincurring an expenditure of about Rs. 28,000\/-.\t The process was
\non for construction of godowns, weighing sheds, platforms etc.
\nThe Market Committee had appointed corporates to attend to the
\nwork of grading of the market produce.\tSupervising staff had
\nbeen appointed to inspect the premises of the traders to ensure
\nproper weighment.  Thirteen persons had been licensed for the
\nweighment   job.  Thus, according to the market committee, it had
\nalready started various services in the market area and the
\nprocess for providing further services was already on.\tThe levy,
\ndemand and collection of market fee by the defendant was sought
\nto be justified on this basis.\tThe defendant also raised a plea that
\nthe plaintiff  Association had filed a Writ Petition in the High
\nCourt challenging increase in the market fee.  The Writ Petition
\nhad been dismissed.  In view of the dismissal of the Writ Petition,
\nan argument was raised by the learned counsel for the Market
\nCommittee that the suit was barred by the principles of res
\njudicata.  Although the issue raised in the Writ Petition was only
\nwith respect to enhancement of the market fee, yet it was
\nsubmitted that the plaintiff could have agitated the question of levy
\nof market fee in the said petition and since it failed to do so, the
\nprinciple of constructive res judicata would come into play.  It
\nwould be deemed that the point which was available
\nto the plaintiff  Association for being raised at that stage, was
\ngiven up.  The said question therefore, could not be agitated in
\nthe present suit.  The learned counsel for the plaintiff did not have
\nany convincing reply to this argument.\t However, while going
\nthrough the record, we find that the earlier Writ Petition being
\nW.P. No. 1184\/78 was filed when Rajam was under the erstwhile
\nPonduru Agricultural Market Committee.\tIt is possible that the
\nargument regarding non-availability of facilities and amenities in
\nthe market area was not available then because Ponduru
\nAgricultural Market Committee which had jurisdiction over Rajam
\nSub-Taluk, might have been in existence since long and the
\nrequisite facilities in the notified market area were possibly
\navailable.  Since there is no material on record, in this connection,
\nwe are not inclined to non-suit the plaintiff on this ground.  The
\nonly question left for decision in the present appeal is as to
\nwhether there has to be a quid pro quo for the levy of fee in the
\nsense that services and facilities ought to be available in the
\nmarket area before a fee can be levied and if so the extent to
\nwhich such services and amenities be available.\t  In other words,
\nit is to be decided as to whether the fee levied by a Market
\nCommittee in pursuance of power conferred on it under the
\nrelevant statute i.e., A.P. Agricultural (Produce & Livestock)
\nMarkets Act, 1966, is to commensurate with or in proportion to the
\nservices and facilities provided by the Market Committee to the
\ntraders and purchasers in the market area.  To facilitate
\nconsideration of this question, it will be appropriate to notice
\nrelevant provisions of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 2(vi) defines market to be a market established
\nunder sub-section (3) of Section 4 and includes market yard and
\nany building therein.\n<\/p>\n
\tSub-Section (vii) defines a Market Committee as a
\nCommittee constituted or reconstituted under the provisions of the
\nAct.  Notified market area according to sub-section (xii) of Section
\n2 means any area declared to be a market area by notification
\nunder Section 4.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 4 of the Act contains provision for constitution of a
\nMarket Committee and for declaration of a notified market area.
\nThe Government is required to constitute by a notification a
\nMarket Committee for every notified area.  The Market Committee
\nso constituted shall be a body corporate having perpetual
\nsuccession and a common seal with power to acquire, hold and
\ndispose of property.  It is the duty of the Market Committee to
\nenforce the provisions of the Act and the   rules and the bye-laws
\nthereunder in the notified area.  A Market Committee under sub-
\nsection (iii) is required to establish such number of markets as the
\nGovernment may from time to time direct for the purchase and
\nsale of any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of
\nlivestock.  The Market Committee is required to provide such
\nfacilities in the market as may be specified by the Government
\nfrom time to time by a general or special order.\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 12 contains provision regarding levy of fee by the
\nMarket Committee.  It is reproduced as under :\n<\/p>\n
\t   “12(1) :  The market committee shall
\nlevy fees on any notified agricultural produce,
\nlivestock or products of livestock purchased
\nor sold in notified market area [at such rate,
\nnot exceeding [two rupees] as may be
\nspecified in the bye-laws] for every hundred
\nrupees of the aggregate amount for which the
\nnotified agricultural  produce, livestock or
\nproducts of livestock is purchased or sold,
\nwhether for cash or deferred payment or other
\nvaluable consideration. ”\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 14 (1) provides for Market Committee Fund :\n<\/p>\n
\t\t“All moneys received by a Market
\nCommittee shall be paid into a fund to be
\ncalled ‘The Market Committee Fund’ and the
\nsaid Fund shall be deposited, in a single
\nbanking account with the nearest Government
\ntreasury, or with the sanction of the
\nGovernment, in a Bank.\tAll expenditure
\nincurred by the market committee under or for
\nthe purpose of this Act shall be defrayed out
\nof the said Fund; and any surplus remaining
\nafter such expenditure shall be invested in
\nsuch manner as may be prescribed.”\n<\/p>\n
\tSection 15 enumerates the purposes for which the Market
\nCommittee funds may be expended which are as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t “Section 15 :\n<\/p>\n
\tSubject to the provisions of Section 14, the Market
\nCommittee Fund shall be expended for all or any of
\nthe following purposes, namely :-\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tthe acquisition of site for the market ;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tthe establishment, maintenance and
\nimprovement of the market;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tthe construction and maintenance of buildings
\nnecessary for the market and for the health,
\nconvenience and safety of the persons using the
\nmarket and maintenance of buildings under the
\ncontrol of the market committee;\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tthe provision and maintenance of standard
\nweights and measures;\n<\/p>\n
(v)\tthe pay, pensions, leave allowances,
\ngratuities compassionate allowances and
\ncontribution towards leave allowances, pensions or
\nprovident fund of officers and servants employed
\nby the market committee;\n<\/p>\n
(vi)\tthe payment of interest on loans that my
\nraised fir purposes of the market and the provisions
\nof a sinking fund in respect of such loans;\n<\/p>\n
(vii)\tthe collection and dissemination of
\ninformation regarding all matters relating to crop
\nstatistics and marketing in respect of notified
\nagricultural produce, livestock and products of
\nlivestock;\n<\/p>\n
(viii)\tschemes for the extension of cultural
\nimprovement of notified agricultural produce,
\nlivestock and products of livestock within  the
\nnotified area, including the grant, subject to the
\napproval of the Government, of financial aid to the
\nschemes for such extension or improvement within
\nsuch area, undertaken by other bodies or
\nindividuals;\n<\/p>\n
(ix)\tpropaganda for the improvement of
\nagriculture, livestock and products of livestock and
\nthrift;\n<\/p>\n
(x)\t.\n<\/p>\n
(xi)\tThe promotion of grading services;\n<\/p>\n
(xii)\tMeasures for the preservation of foodgrains;\n<\/p>\n
(xii)-a..\n<\/p>\n
(xiii)\tsuch other purposes as may be specified by
\nthe Government by general of special order.”\n<\/p>\n
It is the  case of the plaintiff that the Market Committee had
\nfailed to establish a market yard within the notified market area.
\nThe Committee had also to provide facilities like weighing of
\nmarket produce\/commodities, laying roads, providing storage
\nspace, platforms for grading and displaying of the products.
\nInspite of passage of considerable time after its constitution, the
\ndefendant  Committee had not made provision for these facilities
\nand amenities in the market area.  On account of these failures,
\nthe Market Committee was not entitled to levy any fee or cess on
\nthe members of the plaintiff Association.  A fee or cess has an
\nelement of quid pro quo which was missing in the present case.
\nTherefore, the levy of fee was illegal according to the plaintiff.
\nThe immediate provocation for filing of the suit was the two
\nnotices dated 25th May, 1982 and 8th December, 1982 issued by
\nthe Market Committee to the members of the plaintiff
\nAssociation demanding market fee from the members.  As
\nalready noted, the trial court accepted the case set up by the
\nplaintiff.  However, on appeal the learned District Judge,
\nSrikakulam allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit filed by the
\nplaintiff  Association vide his judgment dated 9th October, 1990.
\nThe plaintiff preferred a Second Appeal against the judgment of
\nthe District Judge.  The High Court vide its impugned judgment
\ndated 20th February, 1992 accepted the appeal and decreed the
\nsuit of the plaintiff upholding the allegation of the plaintiff that the
\nMarket Committee had failed to\tprovide necessary services and
\namenities  in the notified market area and therefore it was not
\nentitled to levy and collect the market fee.\n<\/p>\n
So far as the factual aspect of availability of facilities and
\namenities in the market is concerned, the plaintiff did not lead any
\nevidence at all.  We are left with only the averments in the plaint
\nabout the absence of facilities and amenities in the notified market
\narea.  There is nothing on record to support the plaint averments.
\nOn the other hand, apart from controverting the plea of the
\nplaintiff regarding absence of facilities and amenities in the market
\narea in the written statement and stating the necessary facts
\ntherein, the defendant led oral evidence on the point by examining
\na witness who was an employee of the Market Committee.\tThe
\nwitness stated that after formation of the Market Committee,
\nGovernment notified the market area as per Section 4(4) of the
\nAct.  He produced a copy of the notification as Exh. B.2.
\nAccording  to the witness, the members of the plaintiff
\nAssociation made applications regarding business in their
\npremises.  The Committee issued licenses to all the traders to
\ncarry on   business in their respective produce. All the traders
\nwere sending monthly statements of the business carried on by
\nthem from their respective premises.  The traders had to pay a
\nmarket fee at the rate of 1% on the basis of their turnover in the
\nmarket.\t The market Committee had taken possession of a site
\ncomprising an area of 8.50 acres on 28th November, 1981 for
\nestablishment of regulated market yard at Rajam.  Tenders had
\nbeen called for construction of the market yard.  The godowns,
\ngrain platforms, weighing sheds, grading platforms were in
\noperation.   Wide publicity was being  given about the benefit of
\ngrading.  The Market Committee also appointed supervisory staff
\nto inspect the premises and to ensure that there was proper
\nweighment of the commodities being traded in the market.  The
\nsupervisors were, besides ensuring proper weights, verifying the
\nproper payment to the ryots by the traders in respect of the goods
\nsold by the ryots to the traders.  The Market Committee was
\nexhibiting price list in respect of notified agricultural produce on
\nthe notice board.  He stated in the cross-examination that the
\nmarket yard was already under construction.  The witness was
\ncross-examined at length but nothing could emerge to show that
\nhis statement about the services provided in the market was not
\ncorrect.\n<\/p>\n
Though according to the trial court and the High Court, the
\nabove facilities or amenities available in the notified market area
\nwere not sufficient so as to hold that facilities and amenities had
\nbeen made available by the Market Committee in the notified
\nmarket area, the learned District Judge, who ordered dismissal of
\nthe suit,  accepted that such facilities had been made available in
\nthe notified market area and this entitled the committee to levy
\nmarket fee in terms of Section 12 of the Act.  The learned District
\nJudge noted from the evidence of DW 1 that no suggestion had
\nbeen put to him in the cross-examination that by 1982 the market
\nyard was not having all the basic amenities.  According to the
\nlearned District Judge, it was clear from the evidence of the said
\nwitness that amenities were being provided in the notified market
\narea and the construction of building was in progress.\tAnother
\nfact which emerged from the evidence of DW 1 was that Market
\nCommittee was giving loans to the growers or ryots by way of
\ncash, loans or by way of supply of manures on credit.  Thus the
\nMarket Committee was discharging its functions.\n<\/p>\n
The question is whether the market Committee was not
\nentitled to levy, demand   and collect market fee till all the facilities
\nand amenities are fully and completely in place.  The facilities
\nalready provided for in the notified market area in the present
\ncase have been enumerated hereinbefore.\t What remains to be
\nconsidered is the extent to which services, facilities and amenities
\nought to be available in the market area before the market fee can
\nbe levied.\n<\/p>\n
The validity of notifications declaring the market area and
\nestablishing the market for notified agricultural produce and the
\nlegality of the levy of market fee came up for consideration before
\na Constitution bench of this Court in Lakhan Lal and others etc.
\nvs. State of Bihar and others etc. [ (1968) 3 SCR 534 ].  This
\nwas a case under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act,
\n1960. On the question of levy and collection of the market fee,
\nthis court observed that the fee collected by the Market
\nCommittee was not excessive and it formed part of the Market
\nCommittee fund which was set apart and earmarked for the
\npurposes of the Act such as elimination of unhealthy market
\npractices, ensuring the correct weight and grading, dissemination
\nof information regarding prices of agricultural produce etc.  It was
\nobserved that there was sufficient quid pro quo for the levy.\n<\/p>\n
Another Constitution bench judgment of this court in Kewal
\nKrishan Puri and another vs. State of Punjab and others
\n[ (1980) 1 SCC 416 ]  while dealing with provisions of the Punjab
\nAgricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, held that element of quid
\npro quo must exist for the payer of the fee for the special services
\nrendered.  The bench noted the well recognized distinction
\nbetween tax and fee.  A fee is a charge for special service
\nrendered to individuals by the governmental agency and therefore
\nfor levy of fee an element of quid pro quo for the services
\nrendered was necessary.\t Service rendered did not mean any
\npersonal or domestic service.  It meant service in relation to the
\ntransaction, property or the institution in respect of which the fee
\nis paid.  The court noted the literal meaning of the phrase quid pro
\nquo as “one for the other” meaning thereby “you charge fee for
\nthe service.” A significant observation contained in the said
\njudgment which is relevant for our purposes is: “the element of
\nquid pro quo may not be possible, or even necessary, to be
\nestablished with arithmetical exactitude but even broadly and
\nevenly it must be established, with some amount of certainty,
\nreasonableness or preponderance of probability that quite a
\nsubstantial portion of the amount of fee realized is spent for the
\nspecial benefit of its payers.\tEach case has to be judged from a
\nreasonable and practical point of view for finding an element of
\nquid pro quo”.\n<\/p>\n
In Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal and others vs.
\nState of Maharashtra and others<\/a>\t [  (1981)  2 SCC 722 ], this
\ncourt observed that a place ought not be notified as a market
\nunless it is ready for use as a market with all reasonable facilities
\nand conveniences.  A view was expressed that a notification may
\nbe quashed if nothing had been done beyond publishing a
\nnotification.In cases where some facilities and conveniences have
\nbeen provided for while some other remain to be provided, the
\ncourt may instead of quashing the notification give appropriate
\ntime bound directions for providing necessary facilities and
\nconveniences.  The present is not a case of total absence of
\nfacilities and amenities in the market area.  It has come in
\nevidence that steps are being taken to improve and extend the
\nservices and the work was actually in progress in that behalf.\tIn
\nfact there is an admission on the part of the plaintiffs- association
\nthat after all the facilities were provided in the market they had
\nstarted paying the market fee as levied by the Market Committee.
\nThis is an admission of the fact that the steps for providing all the
\nrequisite facilities which were on when the suit was filed, came to
\nbe completed during the pendency of the suit.  Therefore, so far
\nas the present case is concerned, the challenge to levy and
\ncollection of market fee does not appear to be having any force.\n<\/p>\n
In Sreenivasa General Traders and others vs. State of
\nAndhra Prasesh and others<\/a> [ (1983) 4 SCC 353 ], the challenge
\nwas to the constitutional validity of the increase in the rate of
\nmarket fee levied by the market committees in the State of
\nAndhra Pradesh under sub-section (1) of Section 12 of the Act.
\nThere was no challenge to levy of market fee, only the increase in
\nrate of the fee was under challenge.  The challenge was based on
\nthe argument that there was no quid pro quo for the increase in
\nrate.  We must note here that levy of market fee under Section
\n12(1) is correlated to the purposes mentioned in Section 15 for
\nwhich the proceeds of the Market Committee Fund are to be
\nexpended.  All the purposes are beneficial to the growers and the
\ntraders.  There was no material to show that the market
\ncommittees were rendering no service or were incurring
\nunauthorized expenditure. The court also referred to earlier
\ndecisions and discussed the same.\n<\/p>\n
Regarding Kewal Krishan Puri’s case (Supra), it was
\nobserved that the case did not lay down any legal principle of
\ngeneral applicability.\tThe fact was that the Market Committees in
\nPunjab were making money by way of collection of market fee
\nand had huge surplus funds.  The surplus funds were being
\ndiverted by the State Government to purposes other than those
\nunder the statute.  Though the funds were being utilized for
\nlaudable public purposes, yet the utilization was outside the
\npurpose spelled out in the statute.  It was observed :
\n“The traditional view that there must be
\nactual quid pro quo for a fee has undergone a
\nsea change in the subsequent decisions.\t The
\ndistinction between a tax and a fee lies primarily
\nin the fact that a tax is levied as part of a
\ncommon burden, while a fee is of payment of a
\nspecific benefit or privilege although the special
\nadvantage is secondary to the primary motive of
\nregulation in public interest.\tIf the element of
\nrevenue for general purpose of the State
\npredominates, the levy becomes a tax.  In
\nregard to fees there is, and must always be,
\ncorrelation between the fee collected and the
\nservice intended to be rendered.  In determining
\nwhether a levy is a fee, the true test must be
\nwhether its primary and essential purpose is to
\nrender specific services to a specified area or
\nclass; it may be of no consequence that the
\nState may ultimately and indirectly be benefited
\nby it. The power of any legislature to levy a fee
\nis conditioned by the fact that it must be “by and
\nlarge” a quid pro quo for the services rendered.
\nHowever, correlationship between the levy and
\nthe services rendered (sic or) expected is of
\ngeneral character and not of mathematical
\nexactitude.  All that is necessary is that there
\nshould be a “reasonable relationship” between
\nthe levy of the fee and the services rendered.”\n<\/p>\n
While dealing with the question of difference between a tax
\nand a fee, the Court observed :\n<\/p>\n
“There is no generic difference between a
\ntax and a fee.\tBoth are compulsory exactions of
\nmoney by public authorities.  Compulsion lies in
\nthe fact that payment is enforceable by law
\nagainst a person in spite of his unwillingness or
\nwant of consent.  A levy in the nature of a fee
\ndoes not cease to be of that character merely
\nbecause\t there is an element of compulsion or
\ncoerciveness present in it, nor is it a postulate of
\na fee that it must have direct relation to the
\nactual service rendered by the authority to each
\nindividual who obtains the benefit of the service.
\nIt is now increasingly realized that merely
\nbecause the collections for the services
\nrendered or grant of a privilege or licence are
\ntaken to the consolidated fund of the State and
\nnot separately appropriated towards the
\nexpenditure for rendering the service is not by
\nitself decisive.  Presumably, the attention of the
\nCourt in the Shirur Mutt case was not drawn to
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution.  The Constitution
\nnowhere contemplates it to be an essential
\nelement of fee that it should be credited to a
\nseparate fund and not the consolidated fund.  It
\nis also increasingly realized that the element of
\nquid pro quo in the strict sense is not always a
\nsine qua non for a fee.”\n<\/p>\n
On the question of increase in market fee, the Court had to
\nsay :\n<\/p>\n
“In the present case, there is no allegation
\nanywhere by any of the petitioners, nor was any
\ncontention advanced that there was any
\nunauthorized expenditure by any of the market
\ncommittees for purposes not authorized by the
\nAct.  There is only a bare assertion on their part
\nthat there are surplus funds available with the
\nmarket committees and therefore the increase in
\nthe rate of market fee from 50 paise per hundred
\nrupees to rupee one was without lawful
\njustification.\tFrom the material on record it is
\nquite apparent that the income from the market
\nfee derived by some of the market committees is
\nnot sufficient to meet the expenditure incurred
\nby them.  That apart, when the petitioners
\nconcede that they do not challenge the levy of
\nmarket fee at 50 paise per hundred rupees in
\nthe year 12972, there can be no basis for
\nchallenging the increase in the rate of market
\nfee from 50 paise to rupee one in 1978.\t Surely
\nthe cost of rendering services has
\ncorrespondingly increased with the fall in the
\nvalue of rupees.  In the economic sense, 50
\npaise of 1972 is certainly equivalent to at least
\nrupee one of today, if not more.”\n<\/p>\n
There is no material placed on record by
\nthe petitioners to show that the market
\ncommittees are rendering no service.  Under the
\nscheme of the Act, there are certain obligatory
\nduties of a market committee.  Sub-section (3) of
\nSection 4 provides that every market committee
\nshall establish in the notified area such number
\nof markets as the Government may, from time to
\ntime, direct for the purchase and sale of any
\nnotified agricultural produce, livestock or
\nproducts of livestock and shall provide, such
\nfacilities in the market as may be specified by
\nthe Government from time to time by a general
\nor special order.  Chapter V provides for various
\nregulatory measures in Rules 54 to 73 for the
\ncontrol of a market in that correct weighments
\nwould be secured, storage facilities provided
\nand equal powers of bargaining assured so that
\nthe growers may bring their agricultural produce,
\nlivestock and products of livestock to the market
\nand sell them at a reasonable price.  There was
\nnot a whisper during the course of the
\narguments that the market committees were not
\nproviding the services as enjoined by Rules 54
\nto 73.”\n<\/p>\n
Another important aspect dealt with in this case is about
\nwhen the services are to be completed.\tThe following
\nobservations are pertinent :\n<\/p>\n
“It will be noticed that these facilities are to
\nbe provided by the market committees in course
\nof time ‘as and when funds permit’.  It is
\nneedless to stress that the question of providing
\nthese facilities would depend on the financial
\ncapacity of each market committee.  That would
\ndepend on whether there are sufficient funds
\navailable at its disposal in the market committee
\nfund.”\n<\/p>\n
The observations noted above in Sreenivasa’s case have
\nsimplified our task to a great extent.\tIt follows that while quid pro
\nquo between levy of fee and facilities provided in the notified
\nmarket area is necessary, exactitude in such matters is neither
\nrequired nor possible.\tThe traditional view about  actual quid\t pro
\nquo has undergone a sea change.\t The extent of
\nservice\/amenities cannot have correlation with the fee levied.
\nSecondly, the market committees can continue their efforts for
\nproviding the amenities depending on availability of funds with
\nthem.  It is not that all the required services must be in place
\nbefore a fee can be levied.\n<\/p>\n
It was in the case of Kewal Krishan Puri (Supra) that this
\nCourt said that for a valid levy of market fee on the agricultural
\nproduce bought or sold by the licensees in a notified market area,
\nthe amount of fee realized must be earmarked for rendering
\nservices to the licensees in the notified market area and a good
\nand substantial portion of it must be shown to be expended for
\nthis purpose.  However, gradually the concept of expending a
\ngood and substantial portion of the market fee collected by the
\nmarket committee has been toned down.  Most of the relevant
\nstatutes have provision for creation of Market Committee Funds.
\nAll market fee which is collected goes into the Fund.  The statutes
\nalso contain provisions as to how the Fund is to be utilized.  The
\npowers of market committees to utilize the Funds are thus
\ncircumscribed by the statutes.\tThe Funds are utilized only for the
\nfacilities in the markets and for the benefit of the members,
\nproducers, growers and traders.\t When the Funds are in any case
\nto be utilized for specified purposes, the observation in Puri’s
\ncase to the effect that a good and substantial portion of it must be
\nshown to be expended, does not have much significance.\tIn
\nSreenivasa Traders and other later cases, it has been accepted
\nthat the market committees may keep on extending the services
\nand facilities in the notified market area as per availability of funds
\nwith them.\n<\/p>\n
In the case in hand, the levy of market fee by the market
\nCommittee was challenged only on the ground that no basic
\namenities or services were provided in the notified market area
\nand therefore the Market Committee had no right to levy, demand
\nand collect the market fee.  We have noted from the evidence on
\nrecord that the market Committee had made provision for certain
\nservices and facilities in the notified market area and efforts were
\nbeing made for extending the services.\tThe market committee
\nhad recently come into existence and completion of all the
\nintended services and facilities takes time.  It has clearly emerged
\nfrom the evidence of DW 1 that steps were being taken for
\nextending the services and facilities in the market area.  The
\nplaintiff has led no evidence to contradict the defendant’s
\nevidence.  Whether particular services and amenities are
\navailable at a given place and the extent thereof are questions of
\nfact which require to be proved or demolished on basis of
\nevidence to be led by the parties concerned.   Since the plaintiff
\nhas not led any evidence whether oral or documentary in support
\nof its case, the Court is left with no option but to accept the
\nevidence of defendant which shows that some services and
\nfacilities in the notified market area were already available while
\narrangements were being made for various other facilities and
\nservices.  The foundation for the case set up by the plaintiff is not
\navailable on record.  The law is well settled that though  quid pro
\nquo is required in relation to a fee which is charged and collected
\nby a market committee, the quid pro quo cannot be in exact
\nproportion to the fee levied.  Mathematical proportions are not
\npossible in such matters.  We have accepted that some services
\nand amenities were already provided for in the notified market
\narea which fully justified the levy of market fee.  We are thus
\nunable to agree with the finding of the High Court that the market
\ncommittee had failed to provide any services or amenities in the
\nnotified market area.  The findings of the High Court are
\naccordingly set aside.\tThe appeal is allowed.\tAs a result of this,
\nthe suit filed by the plaintiff, respondent herein, shall stand
\ndismissed.  There will be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Agriculture Market Committee, … vs Rajam Jute And Oil Millers … on 25 February, 2003 Author: A Kumar Bench: M.B. Shah, Arun Kumar CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 1495 of 1993 PETITIONER: Agriculture Market Committee, Rajam & Anr. RESPONDENT: Rajam Jute and Oil Millers Association, Rajam DATE OF JUDGMENT: 25\/02\/2003 BENCH: M.B. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-180519","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAgriculture Market Committee, ... vs Rajam Jute And Oil Millers ... on 25 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Agriculture Market Committee, ... vs Rajam Jute And Oil Millers ... on 25 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-11-25T05:40:46+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"26 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Agriculture Market Committee, … vs Rajam Jute And Oil Millers … on 25 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-25T05:40:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":5200,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003\",\"name\":\"Agriculture Market Committee, ... vs Rajam Jute And Oil Millers ... on 25 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-11-25T05:40:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Agriculture Market Committee, … vs Rajam Jute And Oil Millers … on 25 February, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Agriculture Market Committee, ... vs Rajam Jute And Oil Millers ... on 25 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Agriculture Market Committee, ... vs Rajam Jute And Oil Millers ... on 25 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-11-25T05:40:46+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"26 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Agriculture Market Committee, … vs Rajam Jute And Oil Millers … on 25 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-25T05:40:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003"},"wordCount":5200,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003","name":"Agriculture Market Committee, ... vs Rajam Jute And Oil Millers ... on 25 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-11-25T05:40:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/agriculture-market-committee-vs-rajam-jute-and-oil-millers-on-25-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Agriculture Market Committee, … vs Rajam Jute And Oil Millers … on 25 February, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180519","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=180519"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/180519\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=180519"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=180519"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=180519"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}