Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD ISMAIL versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MUZAFFARGARH

Sections 2 (b), 4 (3), 19 and 34 (1) (3) of the Punjab Agricultural Product Markets Ordinance 1978 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Application for imposition of market fees on constitutional petition and enforcement of penalty authority. The petitioner, who was a shopkeeper, had a license and a market fee, and after not paying the stipulated time, the authority decided to recover the amount because the landowners who claimed a penalty of five times the land revenue. Was that he refused to be a dealer in agricultural production. No evidence was presented by the authorities for not doing any business in the shop in which evidence was given for dealer in agricultural production under Section 2 (b) of Punjab Agricultural Products Product Markets Ordinance 1978. Receiving market fees meant that commodities should be agricultural products. It must be bought or sold by licensors. It should be bought or sold in marketplaces. The fee will only apply to one-party transactions. The transaction should be the one that was originally transmitted. And the fees would be payable by the licensors when buying or selling agricultural produce. If any such goods were missing, no fees could be received by the authority. There was no evidence that the parties were concerned with the transaction. It appears that the transaction was such that the delivery authority failed to prove the applicant as a dealer in the sale or purchase of agricultural produce, nor did he succeed in proving how. The agricultural production and the quantity of transactions was a matter of hearing with the applicant through the order of recovery. The opportunity to when you need a advocate from Khyber Agency lawyer