Statutory jurisdiction and market fee levy limits shaped the dispute over tobacco dispatches and administrative interference.

A statutory authority can act only within the power conferred by the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, and the prescribed mode of delegation cannot be expanded by supervisory or revisional provisions. The Director's attempt to reopen and interfere with levy matters beyond the statutory framework was held unsustainable, and the High Court's view that the order lacked authority was upheld. On market fee, the levy on dispatch of cut tobacco for use in another factory and through contract manufacturers depended on the statutory conditions for sale or deemed sale within the market area, and the challenged levy was not sustained on the footing adopted by the authorities, though limited factual verification for a later period was left open.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Director had jurisdiction under the scheme of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 to interfere with the levy of market fee and issue directions in relation to the transactions in question; and (ii) whether market fee was leviable on the dispatch of cut tobacco from the factory for use in the assessee's other factory and by contract manufacturers.

Issue (i): Whether the Director had jurisdiction under the scheme of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 to interfere with the levy of market fee and issue directions in relation to the transactions in question.

Analysis: The statutory scheme had to be read as a whole. Sections dealing with delegation, supervisory control, and revisional power operated in distinct spheres and could not be so construed as to render any provision otiose. The revisional power, after the relevant amendments, remained with the Board and the mode of delegation had to conform to the statutory framework. The order of the Director, which purported to reopen matters beyond the permissible statutory limits, was therefore unsustainable.

Conclusion: The Director lacked jurisdiction to pass the impugned order, and the High Court was right in holding it without authority.

Issue (ii): Whether market fee was leviable on the dispatch of cut tobacco from the factory for use in the assessee's other factory and by contract manufacturers.

Analysis: The levy depended on the statutory conditions governing sale and deemed sale within the market area, and the factual setting of the transactions had to be examined in that light. The record did not justify a reopening of past matters, and the Court found no basis to interfere with the High Court's conclusion that the challenged levy could not be sustained on the footing adopted by the authorities. Limited factual verification for the subsequent period was preserved.

Conclusion: The levy, as sought to be imposed through the impugned action, was not sustainable against the respondent on the basis examined by the Court.

Final Conclusion: The impugned administrative action could not stand, and the respondent's position was upheld, while only limited factual production for the later period was left to be examined by the authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory authority can act only within the power conferred by the Act and the prescribed mode of delegation, and a revisional or supervisory provision cannot be used to reopen matters or extend jurisdiction beyond the statute's expressed scheme.

---