Writ Petition No.10891/2014 :: 1 :: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10891 OF 2014 Dhule Agricultural Produce Market Committee … PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. … RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. A.G. Chavhan, Advocate h/f Mr. N.B. Khandare, for petitioner Mrs. Chaitali Chaudhari Kutti, A.G.P. for respondents No.1 & 2 Mr. S.P. Shah, Advocate for respondent No.3 ....… CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2026 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner, Agricultural Produce Market Committee has assailed the order dated 10/9/2014, rendered by the Hon’ble Minister, Marketing, in Appeal No.APP-0213/C.No.65/11/S, confirming the notice issued by the Director of Marketing, Pune in 2026:BHC-AUG:35736 Writ Petition No.10891/2014 :: 2 :: File No.Marketing-5/APMC/Dhule/3386/2009, prohibiting the market committee from levy of fees on the cotton and the seeds ginned and unginned. 2. The respondent No.3 presented application on 17/11/2009 before the respondent no.3, contending that the market committee is charging market fees and supervision charges on raw cotton vis-a-vis cotton seeds those are ginned from cotton marketed in the market area. Consequently, the respondent No.2 issued letter, purporting to be an order dated 29/10/2009, addressed to the Secretary of the petitioner to forbear from collecting market fee on cotton seeds derived from the cotton that has already been assessed to levy. 3. In its response to the respondent No.2, the petitioner submitted that it is entitled to levy and charge fees on cotton seeds which the respondent association is liable to pay. By virtue of the notification dated 8/11/1976 (effective from 28/11/1977), cotton seeds were explicitly included in the schedule to the Act. 4. As the respondent No.2 did not consider the said notification and request, the petitioner again presented detailed representation on 20/12/2010 requesting to issue directions to the Writ Petition No.10891/2014 :: 3 :: association to pay market fees and supervision charges. As the grievance of the petitioner was not addressed by the respondent No.2, the petitioner presented an appeal under Section 52-B of the APMC Act before the Hon’ble Minister. The Hon’ble Minister, vide order dated 10/9/2014, rejected the appeal and confirmed the order issued by the respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the notice vis-a-vis the eventual order rendered by the Hon’ble Minister are unsustainable in law. The APMC Act more particularly Section 29 confers powers upon the market committee to levy and collect fees on agricultural produce marketed within the market area. Therefore, it is permissible for the market committee to levy the fees. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order, submitting that the attempt of the market committee is to levy the fees has to be regarded as multi- point imposition of levy which is not permissible, and that the said issue is dealt in detail by the Division Bench of this Court in case of Chaware Oil Industries, Karanja & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. [ AIR 1985 Bom 160 ]. As such, prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition No.10891/2014 :: 4 :: petition. 7. Upon hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and perusal of the material on record, admittedly the notice issued by the Director of Marketing is concerned, it forbeared the market committee from imposing the market fees on the cotton seeds those are separated from the cotton, on which already the market fees has been levied. While endorsing the said order, the Hon’ble Minister has dismissed the appeal. 8. The contention of the petitioner that the inclusion of cotton and the seeds in the schedule would ipso facto entail the market committee to assess the cotton and its seeds to levy the market fees, cannot be countenanced for the reason that, allowing such an assessment would lead to multi-point imposition of levy, which is forbidden in law. 9. The said issue is no more res integra in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Chaware Oil Industries (supra) more particularly paragraph Nos.12 and 14, which read as under : “12. Now, we turn to the last point relating to the second proviso to S.31 which mandates against multi Writ Petition No.10891/2014 :: 5 :: point imposition of levy in the same market area "in relation to agricultural produce in respect of which fees under this section have already been levied and collected therein." We must confess at the outset that this point has presented some difficulty in arriving at a conclusion. The argument is somewhat on the following lines: Levy of market fees and supervision charges is on ad valorem basis. The sale of Kapas was subjected to this levy. The price of Kapas included price of cottonseed. In the process of separation of cottonseed from Kapas by ginning, the identity of the cotton seed or its essential character is not changed in any manner whatsoever and under the circumstances subjecting the cottonseed again to the levy of market fees amounts to double levy "in relation to" the same agricultural produce which is prohibited by this proviso. 14. . . . . . . Indeed Supreme Court has gone to the extent of observing that if transaction of any commodity subjected to levy, even the transaction of its product will not be subject to levy over again. The term "in relation to" used in the second proviso to S.31 is significant. There has been levy "in relation to" cotton seed though when it was a part of Kapas and only because it is physically separated from Kapas transaction relating to it cannot be subjected to second levy specially when it has not undergone any change. After all we are interpreting an impost legislation which always has to be construed in favour of a subject in case of doubt. Our attention was invited to certain decisions under the Sales Tax Act in which it has been held that unginned cotton and ginned cotton are two different commodities. There can be no doubt about this proposition. But nothing has turned on this consideration in the two Supreme Court decisions referred to above. Under the circumstances it seems to us that petitions must succeed on this last point.” 10. Thus, direction issued by the Director of Marketing, forbearing the petitioner from enforcing multi-point imposition of Writ Petition No.10891/2014 :: 6 :: levy, suffers from no illegality and cannot be faulted. 11. In view of the aforesaid aspect, the order of the Hon’ble Minister does not warrant any interference. Resultantly, the petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) fmp/-