IFTIKHAR HUSSAIN CHAUDHARY, J.--- The petitioner-M/s. Adam Sugar Mills failed to deposit its share of Sugarcane (Development) during the crushing season 19992000 as provided under Rule 3 of the Punjab Sugarcane (Development) Cess Rules, 1964. The Mills management deposit share of Cess which will be recovered from growers but the petitioner had not deposited its own share whereafter the Case Commissioner Punjab issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner and later imposed a penalty of Rs: 20,00,000/- by order dated 7.7.2000.
2. The petitioner filed an appeal before Secretary Food, Government of Punjab which appeal was rejected by order dated 1.4.2003. Petitioner thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 12270/2003 which was accepted and order dated 1.4.2003 of the Secretary Food, Government of Punjab, Lahore was set aside and the appellate authority was directed to redecide the case.
3. The appellate authority heard the petitioner as well as the Cane Commissioner and imposed penalty amounting to Rs. 9,43,093,96 on the petitioner vide order dated 10.1.2005 and rejected the appeal submitted by the petitioner against the order of the Cane Commissioner.
4. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order, under consideration petition has been submitted.
5. It was contended that the germane rules was not followed by the Cane Commissioner and penalty was imposed on the petitioner without applying the mind by the Cane Commissioner. It was also submitted that crushing season 1999-2000 started by March, 2000 and the amount in lieu of Cess Development was due by July, 2000 and, therefore, penalty could not be imposed on the petitioner and the impugned order was liable to be set aside. It was also submitted that order passed by this Court earlier was also misconstrued by the appellate authority and penalty was imposed on the higher side.
6. I have heard the learned counsel and record annexed to petition has also been gone through.
7. According to order passed by the appellate authority, the petitioner-Mills purchased 302501.136 M. Tons of sugarcane during the crushing season 1999-2000. The sugarcane Development Cess fund which the petitioner was liable to pay was assessed to be Rs. 86,25,338.60. The petitioner deposited only a sum of Rs. 30,25,010.00 and failed to deposit a sum of Rs. 56,00,338.60, as the mills failed to deposit its own share Development Cess, the Cane Commissioner issued a show-cause notice to the penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- only by 7.7.2002. The petitioner-Mills thereafter did not deposit its share of sugarcane Development Cess and on one pretext or the other and having recoursed to file different petitions in this Court had been lingering on the case in order to avoid its liability. The conduct of the petitioner in this regard has been found to be totally inequitable and the petitioner on this score alone, is not entitled to any relief in the equitable jurisdiction of this Court.
8. I have gone through the order passed by the appellate authority. The mills had not deposited its share of Development Cess till the end of crushing season; a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner-Mills but still the petitioner failed to deposit the Development Cess. The Cane Commissioner was thereafter justified in imposing the penalty upon petitioner. Whatever has been done in accordance with the rules. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out the particular rule which has been violated by the Cane Commissioner or by the appellate authority who had already taken a lenient view and has revised the amount of penalty from 22,00,000/- to Rs.9,43,093,96. Adequate relief was given to the petitioner by the Department authorities. Petitioner prima facie is not entitled to any further relief in the matter. In case the petitioner is of the view that amount of penalty has been - Calculated on a higher side, proper course for the petitioner would be to deposit the amount of Rs. 9,43,093.96 and thereafter seek review of the order passed by the appellate authority by submitting correct figure which according to petitioner was the actual liability of the petitioner-Mills.
9. As the respondent had not acted in the matter without jurisdiction nor had abused the authority, which vested in them, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in any manner, the petition is dismissed.