P L D 1976 Lahore 1089 (PLP)

On 19th May 1969 the petitioner‑company was issued a notice under .‑rule 30(11) of the West Pakistan Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1940 ,indicating that a fee of Rs. 16,0,0.00 had been assessed for his transactions of maize by‑products for the period 1‑4‑1965 to 30‑9‑1968 and that the same should be paid by him to Market Committee, Lyallpur by 21 st May 1969 failing which the said amount would be recovered through the Collector under rule 51 as arrears of the land revenue. A copy of this notice has been filed in the form of Annex. 'B'. The petitioner filed an appeal which was accepted by the learned Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Lyallpur, in this way ‑that he directed that the assessment should be made afresh after examining the stocks and accounts of the petitioner‑Company. A point had been raised before the learned Assistant Collector that the market fee on oil and chokar which were bye‑products of maize was not leviable, inasmuch as, they did not constitute an agricultural produce within the definition of this term as contained in section 2(a) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act V of 1939. This plea was rejected and it was held that the definition did make mention of maize and various other commodities as the agricultural produce which was to be read with the sentence "or any produce derived from any one . of these". As oil and chokar were derivatives of maize, therefore, according to the Assistant Collector they did fall within the ambit of the definition of the words 'agricultural produce'. The order of the Assistant Collector is dated 12‑I1‑1969 and a copy of the same is Annex. 'D'. The petitioner filed a revision but without any success as the same was dismissed by the learned ‑.Collector, Lvallpur on 5‑4‑1972. The petitioner has come up in writ petition ;,against the aforesaid proceedings and orders to this Court.

2. In the petition it has been mentioned that as the purpose of the Agricultural Produce Markets Act was to help only the growers, therefore, the imposition of fee on the commodities in question was beyond the scope of the Act, inasmuch as, it will not render any help to the growers. The point no doubt is ingenious but has no merit. The purposes of the Act are not .only to help the growers but also to regulate the trade etc. of the various items of agricultural produce as laid down in Abdur Rashid v. The State (P L D 1957 Lah. 400). Even otherwise the point raised has no relevancy because so long as the fee is sutborised by the provisions of the Act itself any imaginative plea of the 'kind under examination cannot reflect upon the validity of the aforesaid ‑fee. The matter of the levy of fee has been examined by me in detail in Writ Petition No. 322 of 1975 titled Messrs Kohinoor Sugar Mills v. Market Committee, Jauherabad etc., decided on 4‑5‑1976 and I need not repeat that discussion over here again.

3. The next point argued was that oil and chokar were derivatives of maize and therefore according to rule 29‑A of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1940 they should not be made the subject‑matter of fee if the maize from which they were produced had already been assessed to fee. The point has been examined by me in Writ Petition No. 126/1975 titled Adamjee Sugar Mills Ltd., Darya Khan, District Mianwali v. Market, Committe. Bhakkar etc. decided on 4‑5‑1976 where I have held that in cases where an assessee wanted exemption of levy of fee on any bye‑product he has to show from his accounts that the bye‑product was manufactured from ‑the same quantity of the principal commodity on which he had already paid the fee or that he had not purchased the bye‑product independently from the market. All these are questions of fact and the learned Assistant Collector) was justified in directing the petitioner to produce his accounts, ledger, and stock books etc. before the authorities concerned if he wanted any correction in the amount on the fee levied. The learned Collector was quite justified in maintaining such an order. The orders impugned in this respect which are quite just and fair on the subject thus call for no interference.

4. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs. s. A. H. Petition dismissed.