{"id":208489,"date":"2011-11-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-11-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011"},"modified":"2016-07-09T08:17:24","modified_gmt":"2016-07-09T02:47:24","slug":"jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011","title":{"rendered":"Jadar vs Agriculture on 11 November, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court<\/div>\n
Jadar vs Agriculture on 11 November, 2011<\/div>\n
Author: M.R. Shah,<\/div>\n
  \n Gujarat High Court Case Information System \n    \n  \n    \n\n \n \n    \t      \n         \n\t    \n\t\t   Print\n\t\t\t\t          \n\n  \n\n\n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t \n\t\n\n\n \n\n\n\t \n\nSCA\/10628\/2008\t 17\/ 20\tORDER \n \n \n\n\t\n\n \n\nIN\nTHE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\nSPECIAL\nCIVIL APPLICATION No. 10628 of 2008\n \n\n \n \n=========================================================\n\n \n\nJADAR\nVIBHAGIYA COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE PURCHASING - Petitioner(s)\n \n\nVersus\n \n\nAGRICULTURE\nPRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE - IDAR & 1 - Respondent(s)\n \n\n=========================================================\n \nAppearance\n: \nMR\nGM AMIN for\nPetitioner(s) : 1, \nMR MANISH S SHAH for Respondent(s) : 1, \nNone\nfor Respondent(s) :\n2, \n=========================================================\n\n\n \n\t  \n\t \n\t  \n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nCORAM\n\t\t\t: \n\t\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t \n\t\t\t \n\nHONOURABLE\n\t\t\tMR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH\n\t\t\n\t\n\n \n\n \n \n\n\n \n\nDate\n: 26\/08\/2008 \n\n \n\n \n \nORAL\nORDER<\/pre>\n
By
\n\tway of this petition under Articles 226 and  227 of the Constitution
\n\tof India, the petitioner has
\n\tprayed  to quash and set aside the impugned orders  dtd.1\/8\/2008
\n\tpassed below application Ex.1 and order dtd. 18\/8\/2008 passed below
\n\tapplication Ex.5, by the  learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Idar
\n\tin Special  Execution Petition No.1 of 2008.\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tfew facts necessary for determination of the present petition, in
\n\tnutshell,  are as under;\n<\/p>\n
The
\n\tpetitioner  is a society registered under the provisions of the
\n\tGujarat Cooperative Societies Act and is engaged in pulling cotton
\n\ti.e. collecting cotton from its members and sending it to the
\n\tSabarkantha Cotton Union (hereinafter shall be referred as ?Sthe
\n\tUnion?? for short) and the Union, in turn, sells the said good to
\n\tdifferent traders in  the entire country. The respondent No.1 is an
\n\tAgricultural Produce Market Committee (hereinafter shall be referred
\n\tas ?Sthe Market?? committee?? for convenience), having its area
\n\tof operation in   Idar Taluka  and having sub market committee at
\n\tIadar. The respondent No.1 market committee demanded market cess
\n\tfrom the petitioner and the petitioner society was of the opinion
\n\tthat in the market area,  no sales and purchase are being taken
\n\tplace and the said society collects cotton from its members and
\n\tsends it to the Union and therefore, they are not liable to pay the
\n\tmarket cess and therefore, the petitioner society preferred Special
\n\tCivil Application  No.1463 of 2001 challenging the demand of market
\n\tcess by the respondent No.1 market committee from the petitioner and
\n\tat the relevant time some other Special Civil Applications and
\n\tLetters Patent Appeal was also pending. The aforesaid Special Civil
\n\tApplication  came up for admission hearing and for interim relief
\n\tbefore the learned Single Judge of this Court and following order
\n\twas  passed  by the learned Single Judge (Coram : P.K. Sarkar, J.)
\n\tin Special Civil Application No.1463 of 2001 on 3\/5\/2001:-<\/p>\n
\n\n \n\n \n\n\n \n\n\n\t?SI  have  heard  \nMr.G.M.Amin,   learned   Counsel      appearing on  behalf  of  the \npetitioner.    Issue Rule.     Mr.H.P.Raval, learned Counsel\n<\/pre>\n
appearing on behalf of  the  respondent  No.1,  Agricultural Produce
\nMarket Committee,  waives service of rule.  Ms.Nandini Joshi, learned
\nAGP is  directed to accept service of rule on behalf of the State
\nGovernment.   In  addition,  the  petitioner  will   make
\nservice of rule on the respondent State.\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr.G.M.Amin, learned Counsel appearing on  behalf of  the  petitioner submits that the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Idar, Dist.  Sabarkantha  is  illegally demanding  market cess from the petitioner and it is also submitted by the learned Counsel that in the market  area no sale   or   purchase  are  being  taken  place.    The petitioner is a society and the members are agriculturist  growing agricultural crops and mainly cotton.  It  is  an admitted fact that the members of the Cooperative Society      who are the farmers are taking the cotton in the notified market  area  and  ginning  the  same, resulting into the separation of seeds and cotton and thereafter  they  give  it to the petitioner society, who, in turn, transfers the goods to  the  Federation.    The learned Counsel for the   petitioner accordingly submits that over this issue there  were litigations and out of one such litigation, a L.P.A. has been registered as No.589\/2000.  It is  submitted  by the learned Counsel that no interim order has been passed by  the  Division  Bench,  nor any interim order has been  passed by any of the Civil Bench.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr.H.P.Raval, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of  the  respondent  No.1,  draws  my  attention  to  the   judgement passed by  this  Court  on  11-2-2000  in  C.A.  No.6351 of  1988  and  other  Group matters.  In the said  judgement, this Court held that in such cases of sale and purchase, the Market Committee is entitled  to  levy  and collect fees.  In view of the judgement, I am of the view     that  no  interim  relief can be granted as prayed by the       petitioner.  Mr.Raval further submits that  the  Director of  Agricultural Produce Market Committee passed an order   on 18-2-2000, exempting the payment  of  cess  from  such transactions.   However, the Director later by his letter  dated 16-5-2000 issued a direction to the  petitioner  to  deposit the  cess  under  protest.    In pursuance of the order of the Director, the respondents are demanding  the  cess from  the  petitioner.   It is submitted by Mr.Raval  that unless the respondents are allowed  to  collect  the      fees,  in  future  there may not be any scope to levy any cess  on  the  products,  which,   otherwise,   will   be   transferred  from  the  market area and there will not be any account of such products.\n<\/p>\n
\tHaving  regard  to the submissions of the learned  Counsel for both the parties, I am of the  view  that  no  interim  order can be passed as prayed by the petitioner.  The petitioner may  deposit  the  amount  of  levy  in  a    separate  account  and the amount of levy to be deposited  shall be on the basis of the last payment of cess made by   the petitioner.  After deposit in a separate account, the      petitioner will furnish a statement  before  this  Court. Since the learned Counsel for the petitioner has made the  statement  that  he will direct the petitioner to deposit the amount of levy in a separate account, it is  expected   that  the  respondents will not adopt any coercive method   for    realising the cess.   List  this   matter    on 26-6-2001.??\n<\/p>\n
That
\n\tthereafter the petitioner society started depositing the said amount
\n\tof cess in a separate account in Dena Bank by maintaining a separate
\n\taccount. In view of the above, the respondent No.1 market committee
\n\tdid not adopt any coercive method for  realising cess. That
\n\tthereafter, L.P.A. No.589 of 2000  came to be  dismissed by the
\n\tDivision Bench vide order dtd.10\/12\/2001. That thereafter the
\n\trespondent No.1 market committee preferred Civil Application No.207
\n\tof 2002 in aforesaid Special Civil Application 1463 of 2001 praying
\n\tthat the respondent No.1 market committee  may be permitted to
\n\twithdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner society in a
\n\tseparate account in pursuance of the order dtd.3\/5\/2001 passed in
\n\tthe aforesaid Special Civil Application and the learned Single Judge
\n\tvide order dtd.19\/3\/2002 permitted the respondent No.1 market
\n\tCommittee  to withdraw the said amount on condition that if
\n\tultimately the Market Committee  succeeds  in the said petition, the
\n\tamount withdrawn by the Market Committee shall be returned to the
\n\tpetitioner society with simple interest at the rate of 10% p.a.
\n\tthereon within six weeks from the date of final pronouncement in the
\n\tsaid proceedings and accordingly the petitioner society was directed
\n\tto withdraw the said amount in question which was deposited with
\n\tDena Bank, Jadar Branch and was directed to forward the cheque to
\n\tthe respondent No.1 – Market Committee  within a period of five
\n\tweeks from 19\/3\/2002.  The learned Single Judge (Coram ; A.R. Dave,
\n\tJ. as the then he was) passed the following order on 19\/3\/2002 in
\n\taforesaid Civil Application No. 207 of 2002 in Special Civil
\n\tApplication No.1463 of 2001:-\n<\/p>\n
?SRule.  Service  of
\nrule  is  waived  by  learned advocate Shri G.M.   Amin for opponent
\nNo.  1 and learned  AGP Shri K.P.  Raval for opponent No.  2.\n<\/p>\n
       \t  This  application  has  been  filed  by  original respondent No.   1 in Special Civil Application No.  1463 of 2001 praying that the amount, which has been deposited  by opponent No.  1 in a separate account in pursuance  of  an   order   dated   3.5.2001  passed  in  Special  Civil   Application No.    1463  of  2001,  be  permitted  to  be  withdrawn by the applicant.\n<\/p>\n
    In Special  Civil  Application  No.    1463\/2001,which has  been  filed  by  opponent  No.  1, it has been  prayed by opponent No.  1 that the present  applicant  is not entitled  to  recover  any  cess from opponent No.  1 petitioner.  The said petition has been admitted  and  by an interim order, opponent No.  1 was directed to deposit the amount in a separate account.\n<\/p>\n
          It  is  the  case  of  the present applicant i.e. original respondent No.  1 that the applicant is a Market      Committee which has to incur expenditure for the  purpose of  providing facilities to its members and therefore the amount of cess, which has been deposited by opponent  No. 1, be permitted to be withdrawn by it.\n<\/p>\n
      The learned advocates have been heard at  length.  Looking  to  the fact that by an interim order this court   has directed opponent No.  1 to deposit the amount and as  the amount is lying in a separate account, in my opinion, it would be just and proper to permit  the  applicant  to withdraw   the  said  amount  on  a  condition  that,  if  ultimately opponent No.  1 succeeds in the petition,  the amount which has been withdrawn by the applicant shall be  returned to  opponent  No.   1 with simple interest @ 10%  thereon.  The Chairman and  Secretary  of  the  applicant  shall file an undertaking to the effect that in the event of opponent  No.    1 finally succeeding in Special Civil  Application No.  1463\/2001, the amount in question  shall be  returned  along  with  simple interest @ 10% within a  period of six weeks from the date of final  pronouncement in the said proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
          The  amount  in  question has been deposited with   Dena Bank,  Jadar  Branch  and  opponent  No.1  shall      withdraw  the said amount and shall forward the cheque to the applicant Market Committee within a  period  of  five weeks from today.\n<\/p>\n
         The application stands disposed  of  as  allowed.  Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
\tDirect service permitted.??\n<\/p>\n
It
\n\tappears that  thereafter aforesaid Special Civil Application 1463 of
\n\t2001 along with other Special Civil Applications came up for hearing
\n\tbefore the learned Single Judge and nobody remained present on
\n\tbehalf of the petitioner and others and hence the said Special Civil
\n\tApplication No.1463 of 2001 and other Special Civil Applications
\n\tcame to be dismissed for want of prosecution  by the learned Single
\n\tJudge vide order dtd.15\/11\/2005. It appears that thereafter a review
\n\tapplication was filed to restore the said Special Civil Application,
\n\tand the said review application also came to be dismissed, thus, the
\n\tdismissal of the aforesaid Special Civil Application 1463 of 2001
\n\tcontinued. It appears that even the petitioner society did not act
\n\tas per the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil
\n\tApplication No. 207 of 2002 in Special Civil Application 1463 of
\n\t2001 withdrawing the amount of cess deposited with Dena Bank and did
\n\tnot forward the cheque to the respondent No.1 ?  Market Committee
\n\tand therefore, the amount of cess deposited by the petitioner
\n\tcontinued in Dena Bank, Jadar Branch. That thereafter in view of the
\n\tdismissal of the aforesaid Special Civil Application 1463 of 2001,
\n\tthe respondent No.1 ?  Market Committee initiated proceedings to
\n\trecover the said amount of cess and to withdraw the same from Dena
\n\tBank, Jadar Branch by filing Special Execution Application  No.310
\n\tof 2006 in the court of learned Civil Judge (SD), Idar to recover in
\n\tall Rs.39,03,533=00 and the learned Civil Judge (SD), Idar
\n\tentertained the said execution application and issued notice upon
\n\tthe respondent No.1 ?  Market Committee  and in the said execution
\n\tpetition, petitioner appeared before the executing court and filed
\n\treply inter-alia submitting that such an execution petition is not
\n\tmaintainable inasmuch as no decree has been passed which is sought
\n\tto be executed and even no final order came to be passed by this
\n\tCourt in Special Civil Application 1463 of 2001 and therefore, it
\n\twas requested to dismiss the said execution petition. The learned
\n\texecuting court passed order dtd.1\/8\/2008 below application Ex.1 in
\n\tSpecial Execution Petition No.1 of 2008 holding that the order
\n\tpassed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.1463 of 2001
\n\tcan be executed as if it is a decree and therefore, the said
\n\texecution petition is maintainable. That thereafter, an application
\n\twas submitted by the respondent No.1 ?  Market Committee  directing
\n\tDena Bank, Jadar Branch to transmit the said amount to the Civil
\n\tCourt and accordingly by order dtd.18\/8\/2008 the learned Civil
\n\tJudge, Idar  passed order  in order to relieve the Dena Bank from
\n\tthe liability in exercise of the powers conferred under Order 21
\n\tRule 46A of the Code of Civil Procedure directing the Dena Bank,
\n\tJadar Branch to transmit the amount of Rs.21 Lacs together with
\n\tinterest and the learned trial court further passed order that the
\n\tsame be taken in the account of the Civil Court and retained as such
\n\ttill further orders. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the
\n\torders  passed below applications Ex.1 and Ex.5 dtd.1\/8\/2008 and
\n\t18\/8\/2008 respectively, the petitioner society has preferred present
\n\tpetition under Article 227  of the Constitution of India. As such
\n\tthe petition is term as petition under Article 226 of the
\n\tConstitution of India, but in reality it is a petition under Article
\n\t227  of the Constitution of India challenging the orders passed by
\n\tthe executing Court.\n<\/p>\n
Mr.S.N.\n<\/p>\n
\tShelat, learned senior advocate  with Mr.G.M. Amin, learned
\n\tadvocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently
\n\tsubmitted that the learned executing court  has materially erred in
\n\tholding that the execution petition is maintainable. It is submitted
\n\tthat as such neither there was any decree passed by this Court in
\n\tthe aforesaid Special Civil Application nor the aforesaid Special
\n\tCivil Application was finally disposed of by this Hon’ble Court and
\n\ttherefore, there was no final order passed by this Court and
\n\ttherefore, as such the execution petition is not maintainable. It is
\n\tsubmitted that Rule 189 of the Gujarat High Court Rules  would not
\n\tbe applicable and even if it is applicable, the order passed by the
\n\tHigh Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be
\n\tdeemed to be a decree. It is submitted that in any case, conditional
\n\torder cannot be termed as a decree and therefore, the execution
\n\tpetition is not maintainable and therefore,  it is requested to
\n\tallow the present Special Civil Application by quashing and setting
\n\taside the orders passed by the learned  executing court below
\n\tapplication Ex.Nos.1 and 5 in the Special Execution Petition No.1 of
\n\t2008.\n<\/p>\n
On
\n\tthe other hand, Mr.Manish Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf
\n\tof the respondent No.1 Market Committee has submitted that this is a
\n\tpetition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,
\n\tchallenging the orders passed by the executing Court below
\n\tapplication Ex.Nos.1 and 5 and the petitioner has prayed for
\n\tdiscretionary relief. It is submitted that for exercise of
\n\tdiscretionary power, this Hon’ble Court may consider the conduct of
\n\tthe petitioner.  It is submitted that  in fact pursuant to the order
\n\tdtd.19\/3\/2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil
\n\tApplication No. 207 of 2002, the petitioner was required to withdraw
\n\tthe amount of cess deposited in the Dena Bank, Jadar Branch pursuant
\n\tto the interim order dtd.3\/5\/2008 passed in Special Civil
\n\tApplication 1463 of 2001  and in turn the petitioner society was
\n\trequired to forward the cheque of the said amount to the respondent
\n\tNo.1 Market Committee within five weeks from 19\/3\/2002, the
\n\tpetitioner society neither withdrew the said amount nor  paid the
\n\tsaid amount to the respondent No.1 Market Committee. It is submitted
\n\tthat the aforesaid interim arrangement was during the pendency of
\n\tthe Special Civil Application in which  the demand of market cess
\n\tby the respondent No.1 was under challenge. It is submitted that if
\n\tthe petitioner  would not have preferred Special Civil Application
\n\t1463 of 2001 challenging the of market cess,
\n\tthe respondent No.1 ?  Market Committee would have  recovered the
\n\tsaid amount in the year 2001 itself and as such the Market Committee
\n\tis deprived of the said market cess
\n\twhich they were supposed to recover in the year 2001.  It is,
\n\ttherefore, submitted that it is now not open for the petitioner
\n\tsociety to refuse to pay the said amount having dismissal of the
\n\taforesaid Special Civil Application. It is submitted that in the
\n\tfacts and circumstances of the case, the learned Executing Court has
\n\tnot committed any error in entertaining the execution. Submitting
\n\taccordingly, it is prayed to dismiss the present Special Civil
\n\tApplication.\n<\/p>\n
\tHeard
\n\tthe learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties.\n<\/p>\n
\tIt
\n\tis not in dispute that there was a demand by the respondent No.1 –
\n\tMarket Committee  of the market cess from the petitioner  in the
\n\tyear 2001. The petitioner challenged the said demand of market cess
\n\tby preferring Special Civil Application 1463 of 2001 contending
\n\tinter-alia that they are not liable to make the payment of market
\n\tcess to the respondent No.1 – Market Committee. The learned Single
\n\tJudge admitted the said Special Civil Application in view of the
\n\tpendency of the L.P.A.  and other Special Civil Applications.
\n\tHowever,  as no interim order was passed by the Division Bench, the
\n\tlearned Single Judge did not grant any interim order, however,
\n\tpermitted the petitioner to deposit the amount of levy in a separate
\n\taccount and the amount of levy to be deposited shall be on the basis
\n\tof the last payment of the cess made by the petitioner and it was
\n\tfurther ordered that after deposit in a separate account, the
\n\tpetitioner  will furnish statement before this Court.  The learned
\n\tSingle Judge further passed an order that the petitioner to deposit
\n\tthe amount of levy in a separate account and further passed an order
\n\tthat it is expected that the respondent will not adopt any coercive
\n\tmethod for realising the cess. It is the contention on behalf of the
\n\tpetitioner that there was no interim order passed by the learned
\n\tSingle Judge  and the interim order was specifically refused,
\n\thowever, it cannot be disputed that the petitioner had taken
\n\tadvantage of the order passed by this Court in the aforesaid Special
\n\tCivil Application which  is reproduced hereinabove and maintained
\n\tseparate account and deposited amount of levy in a separate account
\n\tin Dena Bank, Jadar Branch. Though the learned Single Judge had
\n\tobserved in the said order that ?SIt is expected that the
\n\trespondent will not adopt any coercive method  for realising cess as
\n\tthe petitioner will deposit the amount of levy in a separate
\n\taccount??, it cannot be said that it is not an interim order.  It
\n\tis not in dispute that thereafter in Civil Application No. 207 of
\n\t2002 the learned Single Judge passed order on 19\/3\/2002 in an
\n\tapplication submitted by the respondent No.1 – Market Committee
\n\tpermitting the Market Committee  to withdraw the amount of
\n\tagricultural cess deposited by the petitioner herein  in an separate
\n\tbank account on condition that if the petitioner society succeeds in
\n\tthe aforesaid Special Civil Application, in that case, the Market
\n\tCommittee will return the said amount within six weeks from the date
\n\tof final pronouncement along with 10% interest per annum. The
\n\tlearned Single Judge further passed an order directing the
\n\tpetitioner to withdraw the said amount deposited with Dena Ban,
\n\tJadar  Branch and to forward cheque to the respondent No.1 – Market
\n\tCommittee  within a period of five weeks. Inspite of the said order,
\n\tthe petitioner society did not withdraw the said amount and did not
\n\tforward cheque to the market committee within stipulated time
\n\tprovided in the order dtd.19\/3\/2002 passed in Civil Application No.
\n\t207  of 2002. Thus, the respondent No.1 – Market Committee  is
\n\tdeprived of the amount of cess since 2001 and\/or at least since
\n\t19\/3\/2002, no explanation is given by the petitioner why order
\n\tdtd.19\/3\/2002 passed in Civil Application No. 270 of 2002 was  not
\n\tcomplied with.  It is not in dispute that the main Special Civil
\n\tApplication No.1463 of 2001 came to be  dismissed for
\n\tnon-prosecution  on 15\/11\/2005 and thereafter application for
\n\trestoration of the said Special Civil Application came to be
\n\tdismissed and therefore, the order of dismissal continues. In view
\n\tof the disposal of the Special Civil Application No.1463 of 2001,
\n\teven the respondent No.1 – Market Committee  is entitled to recover
\n\tmarket cess from the petitioner which was challenged by the
\n\tpetitioner in Special Civil Application No.1463 of 2001. After
\n\tdismissal of the aforesaid Special Civil Application, respondent
\n\tNo.1 – Market Committee  has initiated proceedings for recovery of
\n\tthe market cess and to recover the amount of market cess deposited
\n\tby the petitioner in the Dena Bank, Jadar Branch by filing execution
\n\tpetition No.1 of 2008 and in the said petition, the petitioner
\n\traised absolutely technical and dishonest plea of
\n\tnon-maintainability  of the execution petition without focusing on
\n\tthe entitlement of the respondent No.1 – Market Committee  and
\n\trecovery of the market cess which the petitioner society was
\n\trequired to pay in the year 2001 itself, but in view of filing of
\n\tthe Special Civil Application No. 1463 of 2001 and the aforesaid
\n\tinterim order dtd.3\/5\/2001, the same was deferred. When a pointed
\n\tquestion was asked to the learned advocate appearing on behalf of
\n\tthe  petitioner as to whether even in view of the dismissal of the
\n\tSpecial Civil Application and even otherwise in view of the order
\n\tpassed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Application No. 207 of
\n\t2002, the petitioner would like to make the payment of market cess
\n\tto the respondent No.1 – Market Committee  or not, learned advocate
\n\tappearing on behalf of the  petitioner has not given any specific
\n\tanswer, at the same time has not shown any inclination to pay the
\n\tmarket cess, which even otherwise the petitioner society was
\n\trequired to pay in the year 2001 itself when  there was demand by
\n\tthe respondent No.1 – Market Committee  which ultimately came to be
\n\tchallenged by way of Special Civil Application 1463 of 2001.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis
\n\tis a petition  under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and
\n\tthe relief prayed in the petition is discretionary relief and the
\n\tCourt may not grant any discretionary relief in favour of the
\n\tpetitioner, who has not approached this Court with clean hands and
\n\twho wants to defeat the legitimate rights of the other-side only on
\n\tthe technical grounds. As stated above, in view of dismissal of
\n\tSpecial Civil Application No.1462 of 2001 even the respondent No.1 ?
\n\tMarket Committee is entitled to recover the cess which they wanted
\n\tto recover in the year 2001 itself but due to filing of the Special
\n\tCivil Application No.1463 of 2001 and interim order dtd.3\/5\/2001,
\n\twas deferred and\/or the respondent No.1 ?  Market Committee could
\n\tnot recover the market cess and even considering the order passed by
\n\tthe learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Application No. 207
\n\tof 2002 itself  the respondent No.1 ?  Market Committee was
\n\tpermitted to withdraw the market cess deposited by the petitioner in
\n\tthe Dena Bank, Jadar Branch and in turn pay it to the respondent
\n\tNo.1 ?  Market Committee, still the petitioner did not  withdraw
\n\tthe said amount from the Dena Bank, Jadar Branch  and did not pay it
\n\tto the respondent No.1 ?  Market Committee. Thus, the entitlement
\n\tof the market cess by the respondent No.1 ?  Market Committee from
\n\tthe petitioner cannot be now disputed. In view of the above, this
\n\tCourt would not like to exercise discretionary  jurisdiction in
\n\tfavour of such  a petitioner who has not approached with clean hands
\n\tand  whose bonafides are doubted and who does not want to pay the
\n\tlegitimate dues of the respondent No.1 ?  Market Committee,  a
\n\tpublic body.\n<\/p>\n
\tFor
\n\tthe reasons stated above,  present Special Civil Application
\n\tdeserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t\t\t\t\t[M.R.\n<\/p>\n
SHAH, J.]<\/p>\n
rafik<\/p>\n
\t\t   \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
\t\t   Top<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gujarat High Court Jadar vs Agriculture on 11 November, 2011 Author: M.R. Shah, Gujarat High Court Case Information System Print SCA\/10628\/2008 17\/ 20 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10628 of 2008 ========================================================= JADAR VIBHAGIYA COOPERATIVE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE PURCHASING – Petitioner(s) Versus AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE – IDAR […]<\/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":[16,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-208489","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gujarat-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nJadar vs Agriculture on 11 November, 2011 - 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\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Jadar vs Agriculture on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011\" \/>\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=\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-07-09T02:47:24+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Jadar vs Agriculture on 11 November, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-09T02:47:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3767,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Gujarat High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011\",\"name\":\"Jadar vs Agriculture on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-07-09T02:47:24+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jadar vs Agriculture on 11 November, 2011\"}]},{\"@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":"Jadar vs Agriculture on 11 November, 2011 - 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\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Jadar vs Agriculture on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-07-09T02:47:24+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Jadar vs Agriculture on 11 November, 2011","datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-09T02:47:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011"},"wordCount":3767,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Gujarat High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011","name":"Jadar vs Agriculture on 11 November, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-11-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-07-09T02:47:24+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/jadar-vs-agriculture-on-11-november-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jadar vs Agriculture on 11 November, 2011"}]},{"@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\/208489","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=208489"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208489\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208489"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208489"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208489"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}