Ramji Prasad v. State Of Bihar And Ors.

Factual and Procedural Background

The application sought quashing of assessment orders dated 17-5-1988 (Annexures 3, 3/A and 3/B) relating to assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85. Those assessment orders were passed by Mr. R. K. Srivastava, I.A.S., described as Special Officer of the respondent Market Committee. The petitioner challenged the orders inter alia on the ground that Mr. Srivastava was not empowered under S. 9(5) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 to make orders of assessment.

The Market Committee had been constituted by Annexure 5 dated 12-3-1983 and, it is alleged, ceased to exist on 12-9-1986. Subsequent notifications appointed persons as special officers for various periods: Sudhir Kumar Rakesh (6-10-1986 to 11-3-1987 — Annexure 5A; and 12-3-1987 to 11-9-1987 — Annexure 5B) and Ravindra Kumar (22-9-1987 to 21-3-1988 — Annexure 5/C). The petitioner contended that after these appointments there was no valid notification under S. 9(5) to empower any person to make orders under Section 27A of the Act, and therefore Annexures 3, 3/A and 3/B should be quashed.

No counter-affidavit was filed on behalf of the Market Committee or the State. The Court called for a report from Mr. R. K. Srivastava concerning his competency to make the assessment orders. In his report he stated that a notification under Section 37 had conferred powers of the Chairman on Mr. Sudhir Kumar Rakesh for 12-9-1987 to 15-11-1988 and on Mr. Purn Chand Rai for 16-11-1988 to 11-3-1989; a corrigendum stated that the name of Mr. R. K. Srivastava should be read in place of Mr. Sudhir Kumar Rakesh. Respondents relied on that material to urge that Mr. Srivastava was competent to make the assessment orders.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether Mr. R. K. Srivastava, acting under a notification said to operate through Section 37 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, was empowered to make orders of assessment under Section 27A of the Act.
2. Whether a notification under Section 37 (conferring powers of the Chairman) can substitute for a notification under Section 9(5) when the Market Committee is not in existence, so as to enable a person to exercise powers under Section 27A.
3. Whether, in a situation where the Market Committee is not in existence, only a person notified under Section 9(5) of the Act can exercise powers under Section 27A.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The assessment orders (Annexures 3, 3/A and 3/B) were invalid because Mr. R. K. Srivastava was not empowered under S. 9(5) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 to make assessments under Section 27A.
• The Market Committee had ceased to exist on 12-9-1986, and after that date there was no valid notification under S. 9(5) to authorize anyone to make the assessments impugned.

Respondents' Arguments

• Mr. Srivastava reported that a notification under Section 37 conferred the powers of the Chairman on certain officers for specified periods, and a corrigendum substituted Mr. R. K. Srivastava's name; on that basis respondents contended Mr. Srivastava was competent to make the assessment orders.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the statutory scheme and the notifications relied upon. It analyzed Section 37 of the Act and concluded that Section 37 empowers the Board to make arrangements for performance of the duties and functions of the Market Committee and the Chairman in certain cases where the Market Committee exists but is unable or not competent (for example due to a court order) to perform its duties. Section 37, the Court held, does not contemplate a situation where the Market Committee is not in existence at all.

Because the Market Committee was admittedly not in existence during the relevant period, Section 37 could not be invoked to fill the void. The notification relied on by respondents conferred only the powers of the Chairman on Mr. Srivastava (through corrigendum), and the Court noted that the Chairman himself is not competent to make orders of assessment under the Act. Since no powers of the Market Committee were conferred on Mr. Srivastava, the notification under Section 37 did not empower him to make orders under Section 27A.

The Court further stated that when the Market Committee is not in existence, the only persons who can exercise powers under Section 27A are those notified for the purpose under Section 9(5) of the Act. Because there was no valid notification under Section 9(5) authorizing Mr. Srivastava to make the assessments, his assessment orders were held to be invalid.

Holding and Implications

Application allowed; Annexures 3, 3/A and 3/B quashed.

Implications and immediate consequences:

• The impugned assessment orders dated 17-5-1988 (Annexures 3, 3/A and 3/B) are quashed for want of jurisdiction in the Officer who made them.
• The Market Committee is now in existence and is directed to proceed to assess the petitioner for the years in question in accordance with law.
• The Court directed that it will not be necessary for the Committee to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner; the petitioner is to appear before the Committee on 20th March, 1991 with the documents on which he relies. On that date the Committee may either make the assessment after hearing him or adjourn to a future date.
• No broader precedent or broader implications are discussed in the opinion; the decision operates to correct the jurisdictional defect in the assessments and requires reassessment by the duly constituted Committee.