2001 PLP 1051 (MLD)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 6, 19 & 22‑‑‑Sindh Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1940, R.29(ii)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Collection of market fee qua transactions relating to livestock within the notified areas of the whole division‑‑‑Collection of market fee or trade allowance from transactions outside notified market area ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ -Grant of licence to dealer only enabled him to carry on his business in the notified market area‑‑‑Dealer has to transact business in conformity with the requirements of Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, and Sindh Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1940‑‑‑Such dealer could not recover market fee or trade allowance from persons who did not transact business through the dealer. Ansari Abdul Latif for Petitioners. Abdul Latif Qureshi, Secretary on behalf of Respondent No.2. Muhammad Sarwar Khan, A.A.‑G. for Respondents Nos. 1, 3 and

4. M. Yasin Kayani for Respondent No.5. Aleem Akber Sheikh for Respondent No.6. Mehmood A. Qureshi for Respondent No.7. The petitioners who are dealers in livestock and licensees of the Market Committee Karachi in terms of Rule 29(11) of the Sindh Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1940 (APM Rules) have alleged that they are entitled to recover Market Fee and Trade Allowance from dealers of agricultural produce including livestock in the notified Market Area of Karachi and have sought, direction against official and private respondents from obstructing them in the collection of such fee and trade allowance. Before proceeding to discuss the merits of the controversy, it may be pertinent to mention that Mr. Mehmood A. Qureshi learned counsel for the respondent No.7 pointed out that in terms of letter dated 1‑7‑2000 addressed by the respondent No.6 to the petitioner No.1, the petitioners were fully entitled to charge Trade Allowance at the rates mentioned in the aforesaid letter in respect of all transactions carried out through them but they had no right to collect Market Fee. This position was acknowledged by all other learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The controversy, therefore, is only confined to the question whether the petitioners are entitled to collect Market Fee in respect of all transactions relating to livestock within the notified area of Karachi Division.

2. The Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1939 (APM Act) is basically' designed to provide for better regulation of sales and purchases, check‑of agricultural produce and for establishment of markets for the abovesaid purposes. It, inter alia, stipulates an establishment of Market Committees to perform certain functions and enables them to grant licences to dealers under section 6 of the Act. Section 19 enables a Committee to levy a fee on agricultural produce bought or sold in the notified market area. Section 22 forbids any person from receiving any trade allowance other then an allowance prescribed by Rules and Bye‑Laws.

3. It appears quite clearly from the scheme of the Act and the rules that the petitioners having obtained dealership licence from the Market Committee became liable to pay Market Fee at the prescribed rate in respect of all agricultural produce (including livestock) transacted through him. It is evident from the letter dated 1‑7‑2000 that they were required to pay Rs.2 for a Goat. Rs.5 .for Cow and Rs.10 for a Horse etc. However, to enable them to pass the burden of such tax to their customers they were authorised to charge up to Rs.5 for a Goat. Rs.15 for a Cow and Rs.30 for a Horse by way of trade allowance.

4. It appears quite plainly to us that a Market Fee and Trade Allowance are altogether different kinds of imposts. Market Fee is a levy which is payable by every licensed dealer to the Market Committee which renders certain services and the funds whereof are to be expended for purposes specified in the statute. The prescribed rate of Trade Allowance on the other hand is the maximum amount which a dealer can recover from a buyer or seller who transacts business through him. This amount he appropriates to himself.

5. In any event, the grant of a licence to a dealer only enables him to carry on his business‑ in the notified Market Area in conformity with the requirement of the Act and the Rules. There is nothing in the law enabling such dealer to recover Market Fee on behalf of the Market Committee or Trade Allowance from persons who do not transact business through him. We, therefore, found this petition to be entirely misconceived and dismissed the same in limine alongwith listed applications by our short order dated 19‑10‑2000 and these are the reasons for the same. It is, however, clarified that the petitioners would be at liberty to recover Trade Allowance at the prescribed rates from their own customers and nobody will restrain them from doing so as undertaken by the respondents. Q.M.H./M.A.K./G-28/K Order accordingly.