http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: DINESH CHANDRAASHOK KUMAR/AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/08/1996

BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. BENCH: PUNCHHI, M.M. MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCALE  (6)323

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: [WITH Civil Appeal Nos.1679, 1680/82, 1961, 1962/84 and 2809                           of 1982]                          O R D E R      By the  impugned common  judgment, the  High Court  has remitted the  matter back  to the Mandi Samitis concerned to adjudicate    upon     the     claim     of     the     writ petitioners/respondents  herein,   that  no  market  fee  is chargeable  from  them  as  no  service  is  rendered.  This direction was  made despite  the averment  made by the Mandi Samitis in  the counter  affidavits that they were rendering some services  like arrangement  for electric  light, water, scavenging, other amenities in the marketyards, provision of tents, urinals,  culverts and  construction of  link  roads. Besides the existing services being rendered, infrastructure of future  services likely to be rendered had been disclosed inasmuch as  the  process  was  said  to  be  going  on  for acquisition of  land for construction of marketyards, market complexes  consisting   of  godowns,   post-offices,  banks, warehouses, shelters  and rest-houses etc. The High Court in taking that  step has  put the  Mandi Samitis  into a war of wits between  them and  the traders;  the Samitis contending that they  have provided  some facilities  and are likely to provide more  in future  and the  traders contending that no such facilities have been provided and none were expected to be  provided  in  the  future.  This  controversy  has  been enlivened on  the supposition  that on the principle of quid pro quo,  there should  be near-balance  of the fee demanded and services rendered. That, in our view, is not the correct approach. The  High Court should not have left the matter at large with  the Mandi  Samitis who  in the nature of things, would have  to be  Judges  in  their  own  cause;  something undesirable.      This Court  in M.C.D.  and others  vs. Mohd.  Yasin and Another [1983  (3) SCC 229 at 235] summing up the judge-made law on the point, observed as follows:      "....... Though  a  fee  must  have

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    relation to  the services rendered,      or the  advantages conferred,  such      relation need not be direct, a mere      casual  relation   may  be  enough.      Further neither  the  incidence  of      the fee  nor the  service  rendered      need  be   uniform.   That   others      besides those  paying the  fees are      also  benefited  does  not  detract      from the  character of  the fee. In      fact,  the   special   benefit   or      advantage to the payers of the fees      may even  be secondary  as compared      with   the    primary   motive   of      regulation in  the public interest.      Nor is the court to assume the role      of a cost accountant. It is neither      necessary nor  expedient  to  weigh      too meticulously  the cost  of  the      services rendered  etc. against the      amount, of  fees collected so as to      evenly balance the two. A broad co-      relationship  is   all  that  is  a      necessary  quid   pro  quo  in  the      strict sense  is not  the  one  and      only true index of a fee; nor is it      necessarily absent in a tax."      This  view   has  been  constantly  followed  in  later decisions. The  element of  quid pro quo in its strict sense is not  always a  sine qua  non  for  a  fee.  See  in  this connection City  Corporation of  Calicut  vs.  Thachambalath Sadalinan  and  others  [1985(2)  SCR  1008]  wherefrom  the following passage may be read with advantage:      "It  is   thus  well   settled   by      numerous recent  decisions of  this      Court that  the traditional concept      in  a   fee  of  quid  pro  quo  is      undergoing  a   transformation  and      that  though   the  fee  must  have      relation to  the services rendered,      or the  advantages conferred,  such      relation need not be direct, a mere      casual relation  may be  enough. It      is not  necessary to establish that      those who  pay the fee must receive      direct  benefit   of  the  services      rendered for which the fee is being      paid. If  one who  is liable to pay      receives general  benefit from  the      authority  levying   the  fee   the      element  of  service  required  for      collecting fee  is satisfied. It is      not  necessary   that  the   person      liable to  pay  must  receive  some      special benefit  or  advantage  for      payment of the fee."      Applying the  ratio of the above decisions to the facts emerging on  the present  files, it  becomes patent that the appellant-Samitis do  render a number of services to persons transacting their  business and deals in the market-yards as elsewhere, and  it is  not  necessary  that  what  they  are charging, would  be shown  to have been spent penny by penny for the  benefit of the fee payers and others concerned with them. The High Court should have, if doubting, gone into the question  itself,  whether  the  claim  of  the  Samitis  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

rendering services  was authentic  or not,  or else  to have gone by  the word  of the  Samitis that  they were rendering such services.  There was  no occasion for the High Court to have remitted  the matter  to the  Mandi Samitis and thereby open  flood-gates   of  never   ending  disputes;   counter- productive to  the good objects sought to be achieved by the concerned enactment.      For the  foregoing reasons, we allow these appeals, set aside the  impugned orders of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition  preferred by  the respondents before the High Court, but without any order as to costs.