M/S MAHESH EDIBLE OIL INDUSTRIES LTDversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

                HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                            WRIT - C No. - 35365 of 2026

M/S Mahesh Edible Oil Industries Ltd
                                                                        .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                      .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)           :   Anil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)           :   Archit Mandhyan, C.S.C., Lakshmi Kant
                                        Mishra

Court No. - 36
                  HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anil Kumar Pandey,

learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for

State-Respondent and Sri Lakshmi Kant Mishra, Advocate for Respondents-2 to 4.


2. It is admitted case of petitioner that he has purchased mustered seeds from outside
of State of Uttar Pradesh and it was used to prepare mustered oil by the petitioner firm

situated within the Mandi area of Shamsabad, District Agra. A notice was issued

under the provisions of U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 read with U.P.

Krishi Utpadan Mandi Niyamawali, 1965 that petitioner was required to submit details

of purchase of mustered seeds from other States.


3. Petitioner has come up with a case that he has already uploaded all relevant

documents on the portal of Respondent-Mandi Samiti and it is submitted by learned

counsel for petitioner that despite all documents were available, on an erroneous

ground, reply to notice was rejected and impugned order was passed imposing a

demand of Mandi Fee and Development Cess to the tune of more than Rs. 2.4 crores.

Petitioner has filed a revision, however, the same was also dismissed, therefore, this

writ petition is filed.


4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that once the requisite documents were

already on record, there was no necessity or requirement to ask for any other

document and even that was not a requirement under Rule 139 of Amended Rules of

2023. He also submits that mustered oil is not a specified agriculture produce.
                                                                                                     WRIC No. 35365 of 2026
                                                                         2


                                    5. On a query of this Court, whether the documents sought, though may not be legally

                                    required, were filed alongwith reply or before Revisional Authority, the Court is not

                                    satisfied with the answer given by learned counsel for petitioner, specifically in terms

                                    of averments made in para 19 of writ petition as well as averments made in memo of

                                    revision though it has not been denied that said documents are available with

                                    petitioner, may be bulky.


                                    6. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel appearing for

                                    Respondent-Mandi Samiti, submit that it is on record that despite repeated

                                    opportunities petitioner has not filed any documents and even he remained absent

                                    during oral hearing and documents were not provided as well as no legal issue was

                                    raised either in reply or during revisional proceedings.


                                    7. Learned counsel for petitioner lastly submits that in case an opportunity is granted

                                    to petitioner, he will produce the bulky documents before Revisional Authority and

                                    question of law may also be kept open so that it may be submitted before Revisional
                                    Authority.


                                    8. I have considering above submissions and considering that there are legal issues for

                                    consideration as well as petitioner has not supplied all requisite documents and that

                                    the quantum of Mandi Fee as Development Cess fixed is quite high, therefore, the

                                    Court is of the view that no prejudice will be caused if a chance is given to petitioner

                                    to place all documents before Revisional Authority so that a fresh order be passed on

                                    merit.


                                    9. In view of above, with aforesaid liberty and keeping the question of fact as well as

                                    law open about jurisdiction also, impugned order dated 29.06.2026 passed by

                                    Revisional Authority is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to Revisional

                                    Authority to pass a fresh order. Petitioner shall file all relevant documents within a

                                    period of three weeks from today.


                                    10. With aforesaid observations/ liberty and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

                                    September 8, 2026
                                    AK
                                                                                          (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad