Swapan Kumar Dholi vs The State of Jharkhand and Others

Aparesh Kumar Singh

Heard Learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by the demand notice as contained in letter no. 527 dated 11.11.2006 issued under the signature of the Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Barharwa, P.O. & P.S.- Rajmahal, District-Sahibganj whereby the petitioner has been asked to pay a sum of Rs. 1,34,594/- in lieu of installment in view of the minimum guarantee licence fee as the petitioner has been appointed for collecting the market rent for the financial year 2006-07 in respect of the market area falling under Barharwa, Sahibganj.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner, by referring to Annexure-1, submits that for six haats in the market area the petitioner was granted licence to collect market fee in respect of the market area falling under the Barharwa, Sahibganj. However, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that after grant of the licence to collect market fee to the petitioner, other persons have also been allowed to collect market fee in the same area and collection of market fee has been made by the other persons as is evident from the receipt of Azad Hind Cattle Market as annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had made representation from time to time requesting the respondent authorities to proportionally reduce the licence fee originally settled for that area with the petitioner as other persons have also been granted licence to collect the market fee within the same area overlapping the area where the petitioner has been granted licence. According to the petitioner, other persons have been granted licence to collect market fee and have been collecting the market fee within the same area and therefore, petitioner has faced difficulty in collecting the market fee over the entire area due to such overlapping. It is further submitted that representation of the petitioner has not been properly considered before issuance of the impugned letter under the signature of the Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Barharwa, Sahibganj contained at Annexure-8.

However, Learned Counsel for the respondents, by way of averment made in the counter affidavit, submits that the respondents have taken into account the grievance of the petitioner as it will appear from the letter no. 581 dated 31.12.2006 issued under the signature of the Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Barharwa and addressed to Sub-Divisional Officer-cum- Special Officer of the Marketing Committee, Rajmahal.

However, Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that from perusal of the said annexures it itself becomes apparent that the respondents do not dispute the contention of the petitioner that in case such a new haat has been set up in the area under Barharwa marketing committee, new persons are also required to obtain licence for collecting market fee. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on the basis of the fact that original minimum guarantee was fixed at the time of settlement to the petitioner, issuance of demand has been raised. In view of the above, it is submitted by Learned Counsel for the petitioner that respondents have not applied their mind properly regarding the grievance of the petitioner and unjustified demand has been raised which should have been proportionately reduced in view of the intervening circumstances that occured when the licence of the petitioner over the area in question was subsisting.

I have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it appears that grievance of the petitioner has not been properly addressed by the respondent authorities. From the communication at Annexure-B, it also does not appear that issue relating to collection of market fee to the other persons in the same area after the grant of licence to the petitioner have been properly taking into account before raising the demand in question.

In the circumstances, the writ petitioner is allowed to approach respondent no. 4, the Sub-Divisional Officer-cum-Special Officer, Rajmahal, Sahibganj for redressal of his grievance by filing a fresh representation within a period of three weeks containing all necessary facts and supporting documents including proof of licence and permission granted to other persons of market area within the area granted to the petitioner for redressal of his grievances. In case such a representation is made before respondent no. 4, he shall consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order within a period of twelve weeks thereafter and the same shall be communicated to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed with the aforesaid observations.