9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (11) TMI 328X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ates, with him) for the respondent. U.U. Lalit, Senior Advocate (Pradeep Misra and T. Mahipal, Advocates, with him) for the appellants. -------------------------------------------------- The judgment of the court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT J. In this appeal challenge is to the judgment rendered by a learned single judge of the Allahabad High Court allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent. The matter came to be placed before the learned single judge as there was difference of opinion between two honourable judges constituting the Division Bench and the learned single judge as the third judge decided the writ petition. The facts giving rise to the present petition, filtering out unnecessary details are as follows: The respondent ITC Ltd. is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 (in short, "the company"), having its registered office at 37, Chowringee Road, Calcutta. This company is engaged in manufacture of cigarettes and has established several factories for this purpose including a factory at Sardar Patel Marg, Saharanpur. For manufacture of cigarettes, leaf tobacco is required which is excisable to fee levied and collected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... used by the contract manufacturers for manufacturing cigarettes. It represented against the said demand on April 22, 1987. The authorities allowed the respondent to take their stock of cut tobacco without payment of market fee and it continued to do so except on two occasions in the years 1995 and 1996. On September 9, 1998, the President of the Mandi Samiti, Saharanpur, by his order dated October 28, 1998, held that the respondent-company is not liable to pay market fee on the consignment of cut tobacco dispatched to its Calcutta factory. However, with regard to the consignments dispatched to contract manufacturers he sought a direction from the director, Mandi Parishad. In response to the notice served on the respondent by the director, it furnished its reply and placed materials before the director, Mandi Parishad on December 2, 1998. The director, Mandi Parishad, however, by order dated January 14, 1999, rejected the case of the respondent-company and required the President Mandi Samiti to take fresh decision with regard to the levy of market fee in the light of the guidelines provided in the order. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners have filed the present writ petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ect to the provisions of this Act, have the following functions and shall have power to do anything which may be necessary or expedient for carrying out those functions (i) superintendence and control over the working of the market committees and other affairs thereof including programmes undertaken by such committees for the [construction of new market yards and development of existing markets and market areas]; (ii) giving such directions to committees in general or any committee in particular with a view to ensure efficiency thereof; (iii) any other function entrusted to it by this Act; (iv) such other functions as may be entrusted to the Board by the State Government by notification in the Gazette. 2.. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, such power shall include the power (i) to approve proposals of the new sites selected by the committee for the development of markets; (ii) to supervise and guide the committees in the preparation of site-plans and estimates of construction programmes undertaken by the committee; (iii) to execute all works chargeable to the Board's fund; (iv) to maintain accounts in such forms as may be pre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... "33. Delegation of powers. The Board may, by regulations, delegate subject to such conditions and restrictions and in such manner, as may be specified therein any of its powers to the director." The position of section 32 and section 33 prior to 1973, after Amending Act, 1973, after Amending Act, 1977, and after the Amending Act, 1999, reads as follows: Prior to 1973. "Section 32: The State Government may, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any decision of, or order passed by a committee, at any time call for and examine the proceedings of the committee and where it is of the opinion that the decision or order of the committee should be modified, annulled, or reversed, pass such orders thereon as it may deem fit. Section 33: The State Government may, by notification in the Gazette, delegate, subject to such conditions or restrictions as may be specified therein, any of its powers or the powers of any other authority under this Act, to any officer or authority subordinate to it." After 1973 Amending Act "Section 32: The Board may, for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any decision of, or order passe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... continued with the State Government. The High Court seems to have erroneously proceeded on the basis that the sole repository of power was the State. Section 33A deals with powers of director to ensure performance of duties of market committees. Section 33B deals with the State Government's power relating to general power of supervision but there was no scope for revising the delegatees' decision. On November 22, 1973, the Board resolved to delegate powers. On March 21, 1974, there was a specific order of the Board to delegate powers to the director. From 1974 till 1991, the director was exercising power under section 26-I. According to the High Court after 1991 the director ceased to have authority because of section 33. The regulations in terms of section 26X were brought in by the 1973 amendment. The submission of the appellant is that when section 26F came into question and was not repealed and was continued, the repository of the power was the director and the source of power continued. Till 1991, the existing arrangements continued notwithstanding amendment to section 33. Arrangements and delegations made under the whole regime continued. According to section 24 of the Gener ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with effect from August 1, 1998, onwards. The stand of the respondent that the office of the director came into effect in 1977 is not correct. In fact the office of the director came into existence in 1973 but not as an officer of the Board. The delegation was done on March 21, 1974, to the director. Under section 32 after 1973 there is a substantive power of revision. After 1991 under two provisions power of delegation, i.e., section 26-I and section 33 could be exercised. While section 26-I is supervisory in character. Section 33 confers the revisional power of the Board to the director. The manner of delegation is in terms of the "Regulation" and therefore it precludes any other mode. Prior to 1991, section 26-I did not pertain to power of revision. It operated dehors sections 32 and 33. The revisional power went out of the domain of the State Government and the same remained with the Board. After 1991 the situation is that section 33 deals with aspects other than those covered under section 32. That is because the revisional power was already with the Board. Post 1991, the delegation could be done only under the regulation. That being so, the High Court's vis-a-vis conclusion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
