Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961

The appellants, food‑grain dealers who had operated for over fifty years in the old market areas of Ferozepur district, were required to shift to newly created Mandi complexes after the Punjab Government decided to auction stalls there without granting any concession to existing traders. They challenged this on the gro…

The appellants challenged the constitutional validity of the Haryana Rural Development Act, 1986, specifically sections 5(1) and 11, alleging that the 1% levy on agricultural produce was a tax in disguise and therefore ultra vires the State's legislative competence under Articles 246(3) and 286(2) of the Constitution. …

The petitioners, licensed dealers manufacturing woollen fabrics, challenged the State of Haryana's requirement that they obtain a licence and pay market fees for sheep‑hair, arguing that sheep‑hair is not "agricultural produce" under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. The dispute centered on whether Sch…

The appellants, dealers in agricultural produce operating in notified market areas of Haryana, challenged the Haryana Rural Development Fund Act, 1983 which imposed a 1% cess on the sale proceeds of agricultural produce and credited the amount to a state‑vested fund for rural development. They contended that the levy w…

The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board (HSAMB) allotted plots in the Adampur grain market to several allottees on payment of 25% of the price, with the balance payable later. The allottees stopped further instalment payments, alleging that the Board failed to develop basic amenities and to notify the area as a …

S.M. Sharma, a Sub‑Divisional Officer of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, was entrusted with the current duty charge of the post of Executive Engineer on 13 June 1991. On 6 January 1992 the Chief Administrator withdrew this charge and transferred Sharma, who then filed a writ petition under Article 226 c…

The State of Punjab appealed against Mis Chhabra Rice Mills challenging the levy of purchase tax on the market fee charged to buyers under the Punjab General Sales Tax Act, 1948. The issue was whether the market fee, paid to the market committee, forms part of the turnover for tax purposes. The Court examined the defin…

British India Corporation Ltd., whose head office in Kanpur purchased raw wool and sent it to its Dhariwal mill, was assessed market fees by the Dhariwal Market Committee under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. The company argued that no purchase or sale occurred within the Committee’s notified area, c…

The petitioners, licensed dealers of the old grain market, sought allotment of plots in a newly created market after the old market was de‑notified. Their applications were rejected, leading to writ petitions. The Punjab High Court initially denied relief (2010) but later granted some relief (2015‑16). The appellants c…

M/s Punjab Spintex Ltd., a cotton yarn manufacturer, sought exemption from both Market Fee and Rural Development Fee under the Punjab Industrial Policy, 2003, claiming that the policy's exemption of Market Fee automatically covered the Rural Development Fee. The State of Punjab contended that the two fees are levied un…

The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board conducted an open auction of shop and booth plots under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, but did not disclose the reserve price in the public notice. The respondents were declared highest bidders, deposited 25% of the bid amount, yet the Chief Administrat…

The State of Punjab declared a new grain market (new Mandi) and denotified the old market, directing licensed commission agents to shift their businesses. Plots in the new Mandi were sold by public auction, and the appellants, who owned shops in the old Mandi, sought allocation of alternative sites on a no‑profit‑no‑lo…

The appellants, who had been working as auctioneers on a commission basis in the Kaithal Market Committee since 1963‑64, were terminated in 2000 after the Chief Administrator of the Haryana State Agricultural Board reiterated a 1982 directive that auctioneers should not work beyond the age of 60. They challenged the re…