Statutory supervision charges need proof of service and legal basis for interest before recovery can be sustained.

Supervision charges under the market law were recoverable only if the statutory preconditions were established, including proof of the State's order, appointment of supervisory staff, and actual supervisory services in the market area. The Court applied the principle of equivalence and held that, without a factual basis for quantification and recovery, the levy could not be sustained by the Market Committee acting as the State's agent. Interest on delayed payment of market fees and supervision charges also required an express statutory foundation; in the absence of such authority, the demand for interest could not be upheld on equitable grounds. The statutory levy and associated interest claim were therefore not sustainable on the record.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether supervision charges could be levied and recovered in the absence of proof that the State had issued the requisite order, appointed supervisory staff, and rendered supervisory services in the market area; (ii) whether interest on delayed payment of market fees and supervision charges could be charged without an express statutory basis.

Issue (i): whether supervision charges could be levied and recovered in the absence of proof that the State had issued the requisite order, appointed supervisory staff, and rendered supervisory services in the market area.

Analysis: The liability to pay supervision charges was held to arise only when the statutory preconditions were satisfied. The charge was not a general levy of the Market Committee but a statutory burden recoverable for supervision actually arranged by the State. The Court held that the foundation of such a charge was the principle of equivalence, requiring a measurable benefit or service and some factual basis for the quantification and recovery. As the State had not produced the general or special order, nor shown the basis for calculation or proof of actual supervision, the foundational facts were absent. In such circumstances, the Committee, acting only as an agent of the State, could not sustain the recovery.

Conclusion: Supervision charges were not leviable on the facts proved and the challenge to their recovery failed against the respondents.

Issue (ii): whether interest on delayed payment of market fees and supervision charges could be charged without an express statutory basis.

Analysis: The Court held that interest must be traceable to the statute where the levy itself is controlled by statute. In the absence of a clear statutory foundation authorising interest, and where the statutory scheme contemplated only the specified charges and penal consequences, the demand for interest could not be sustained merely on general equitable considerations. The High Court's view that no such power existed was not shown to be erroneous.

Conclusion: Interest on delayed payment of market fees and supervision charges was not recoverable in the manner sought by the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The statutory levy of supervision charges and the associated interest demand were not sustainable on the record, and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory supervision charge can be recovered only when the statute's preconditions and the factual basis for the charge are established, and interest on such statutory dues is recoverable only if the governing statute expressly authorises it.

---