' The concurrent judgments have been challenged through this civil revision by the petitioners, who instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents restraining them to recover the market fee. It was contested: An application for grant of interim relief was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 9-5-2003 which was assailed in appeal and met the same fate on 10-3-2004. Aggrieved of the concurrent decision, the petitioners preferred this civil revision.
2. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
3. In paragraph No.3 of the plaint, the petitioners raised averments of their doing Karyana business, which includes dry fruit and after products not connected with the agricultural produce. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed on record the copy of notification dated 25-2-1987 issued by the Government of the Punjab in respect of the respondent committee. Through this notification, Governor of the Punjab ordered to exercise control over the sale and purchase of agricultural produce mentioned in Column No.6 of the schedule in respect of each notified market area and through amendment fruits and dry fruits, vegetables (dry) were included therein. The Appellate Court while attending the arguments of the petitioners relied on the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.6340 of 1995 titled Maqsood Ahmad and others v. Government of the Punjab and others and Writ Petition No.9154 of 1995 titled Nazir Ahmad v. Government of the Punjab, directing the market committee to keep correct and true accounts of the collection from the petitioners for if ultimately, it is found that market committee was not authorized to collect the same, it be refunded to them. Some of the petitioners were party to the aforementioned writ petition, which decision having not been challenged has attained finality.
4. I am not inclined to take a different view. Since concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by the learned Courts below therefore, no interference is called for. The respondents are directed to maintain correct and true account in respect of collection of fee paid by the petitioners, and if on final decision, it is found that respondents were not authorized to collect the fee, the same might be returned to the petitioners. Disposed of accordingly.