Mandatory market fee collection by seller-licensee upheld where buyer is not a licensee; writ relief against purchaser refused

Section 27 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act and Rule 82 impose a mandatory duty on a seller-licensee to realise and deposit market fee where the buyer is not a licensee; the obligation is not defeated by the seller's inability to recover the fee from the purchaser, so the Market Committee may proceed against the seller and the assessment remains valid. A writ direction against the purchaser-corporation was refused because the claim depended on disputed contractual facts arising from a special purchase arrangement, which was not suitable for determination in writ jurisdiction; the seller was left to seek other legal remedies.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under Section 27 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 read with Rule 82 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, the seller-licensee remained liable to realise and deposit market fee when the buyer was not a licensee; (ii) whether a direction could be issued in writ jurisdiction requiring the purchaser-corporation to pay the market fee.

Issue (i): Whether, under Section 27 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 read with Rule 82 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, the seller-licensee remained liable to realise and deposit market fee when the buyer was not a licensee.

Analysis: Section 27 levies market fee on agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area and makes it payable by the buyer in the prescribed manner. Rule 82 prescribes that where the seller is a licensee and the buyer is not a licensee, the seller shall realise the market fee from the buyer and deposit it with the Market Committee within a week. The use of mandatory language shows that the seller's duty to realise and remit the fee is not dependent on actual recovery from the purchaser. The Market Committee is therefore entitled to proceed against the seller.

Conclusion: The seller-licensee remained liable to pay the market fee, and the assessment order was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether a direction could be issued in writ jurisdiction requiring the purchaser-corporation to pay the market fee.

Analysis: The sale to the corporation was made under a special purchase arrangement at a negotiated price that took into account market fee and related expenses. The claim against the corporation turned on the terms of that arrangement and involved disputed factual questions. Such a dispute was not fit for adjudication in the writ proceeding, and the seller was left to pursue any other remedy available in law.

Conclusion: No direction could be issued to the purchaser-corporation to pay the market fee in the writ proceeding.

Final Conclusion: The appellants were held liable for the market fee, and no writ relief was granted against the purchaser-corporation.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statute and rules cast a mandatory duty on a seller-licensee to realise and deposit market fee when the buyer is not a licensee, the market committee may recover the fee from the seller irrespective of actual recovery from the purchaser.

---