Valid fee and anti-unjust-enrichment provision upheld where statutory scheme showed practical correlation between levy and market services.

A levy under the Haryana Rural Development Act, 1986 was upheld as a valid fee because the statutory scheme showed a practical correlation between the collection and the rural development and market-related services funded from it, satisfying quid pro quo in the broad sense recognised by later Supreme Court decisions. The challenge that the levy was a tax in disguise failed. Section 11 was also upheld as a validating and anti-unjust-enrichment provision, because it operated only where the burden had been passed on to purchasers and did not revive an invalid levy. The provision was treated as preventing double benefit and directing the amounts to the public purpose for which they were collected.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Haryana Rural Development Act, 1986 imposed a fee lacking quid pro quo and was therefore unconstitutional as a tax in disguise; (ii) Whether section 11 of the Haryana Rural Development Act, 1986 was invalid for permitting retention of cess collected under the earlier invalidated enactment.

Issue (i): Whether the Haryana Rural Development Act, 1986 imposed a fee lacking quid pro quo and was therefore unconstitutional as a tax in disguise.

Analysis: The levy under the 1986 Act was upheld by examining the scheme of the Act as a whole. The preamble, the constitution of the Board, the earmarking of the fund, and the range of rural development and market-related services funded from the levy showed that the collection was intended to finance benefits to dealers and to the market area. Applying the settled distinction between tax and fee, the Court found a sufficient correlation between the levy and the services to be rendered, and held that the requirement of quid pro quo was satisfied in the broad and practical sense recognised by later Supreme Court decisions.

Conclusion: The challenge to the constitutional validity of the levy failed, and the Act was held valid on this issue.

Issue (ii): Whether section 11 of the Haryana Rural Development Act, 1986 was invalid for permitting retention of cess collected under the earlier invalidated enactment.

Analysis: Section 11 was treated as a validating and anti-unjust-enrichment provision, not as an attempt to revive an illegal levy. The provision operated only where the burden had been passed on to the next purchaser, and its effect was compared with the upheld validating provision in the Punjab markets legislation. On that footing, the Court concluded that section 11 merely prevented double benefit and directed collected amounts to the public purpose for which they were taken.

Conclusion: Section 11 was held valid and not unconstitutional.

Final Conclusion: The entire challenge to the 1986 Act failed, and the writ petitions were dismissed with the legislative scheme sustained in full.

Ratio Decidendi: A levy imposed for specified public and market-related services will be treated as a valid fee where the statutory scheme shows a practical correlation between collection and the benefits provided, and a validating provision preventing unjust enrichment does not become unconstitutional merely because it retains amounts passed on to purchasers.

---