Sanjeeb Ku.Behera vs. State Of Orissa

Held

The Court held that the impugned order dated 30.03.2017, abolishing RMC Check Gates, was legal and proper and did not violate the provisions of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Act, 1956, or the Rules, 1958. The Court reasoned that Rule 48-A of the Rules, 1958, facilitated the RMC to open check points but was subject to the approval of the State Government for the larger interest of farmers and agriculturists. The abolition order was interpreted as a withdrawal of this approval, not an amendment to the statute. The Court found that the State Government, in its sovereign duty, could withdraw such approval for the benefit of farmers, especially with the introduction of GST, which aims to collect tax at one point. The Court relied on the purposive interpretation of Rule 48-A and the decision in *Amit Kumar Saa v. State of Odisha*, which held that administrative decisions to abolish check posts, after considering relevant aspects, do not warrant interference. The Court concluded that the abolition of check gates did not create hurdles for the RMC or agricultural producers as market fees could still be collected at the market area and yard. The Court found no infraction of rules or departure from the legislative process.

Facts

The petitioner, Sanjeeb Kumar Behera, a farmer and member of Regulated Market Committee (RMC), Panposh, challenged an order dated 30.03.2017 issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Cooperation Department, Government of Odisha. This order abolished all RMC Check Gates in the State of Odisha with effect from 01.04.2017. The petitioner argued that the abolition was done without affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the RMCs and without collecting relevant data. The order was purportedly issued under Section 5 of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Act, 1956, for the interest of farmers and the public. The petitioner contended that the Act and Rules, specifically Rule 48-A of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1958, which provided for the establishment of Check Gates, were not amended through the legislative process, rendering the abolition order illegal. The revenue, represented by the State of Odisha and others, argued that Rule 48-A required government approval for establishing check gates and that the abolition was a withdrawal of such approval, particularly in light of the introduction of GST.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 30.03.2017 abolishing RMC Check Gates, issued by the Principal Secretary to Government, Cooperation Department, is illegal and improper for not undergoing the legislative process as required for amending Rule 48-A of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1958, which governs the establishment of such gates? (Question of law) Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that Rule 48-A was inserted through the Act, 1956, and any abolition or amendment must follow the legislative process, including placement before the State Assembly. They cited Supreme Court decisions in *Agriculture Market Committee, Rajam* and *Vinod Kumar Koul* to assert that administrative decisions cannot override statutes and that statutory rules govern the field. They also argued that the abolition order was not in the interest of farmers, contrary to the stated purpose. Revenue's arguments: The revenue contended that Rule 48-A required government approval for establishing check gates, and the impugned order was a withdrawal of this approval, not an amendment to the rule. They argued that the abolition was justified due to the recent introduction of Goods and Services Tax (GST) and cited this Court's decision in *Amit Kumar Saa v. State of Odisha* where the abolition of check gates under the VAT Act was upheld. They also argued that the RMC had opened check gates illegally without prior government approval.