' The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are to the effect that the petitioners had filed two suits for the recovery of Rs,28,345.44 and Rs,6,142.48 against respondent No,1 before the Arbitration Board, Market Committee, Chishtian constituted under section 24 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance (XXIII of 1978). During the trial of the suits Bashir Ahmad respondent No,1 had taken the stand that he had given a tractor trolley valuing Rs,68,000 to the plaintiffs/ petitioners, which amount is outstanding against plaintiff and he had taken the plea of set off. The Arbitration Board after recording evidence of the parties observed that Bashir Ahmad, respondent No,1 is liable to pay Rs,20,315.20 to the petitioners and after deducting the said amount from the amount of tractor trolley, Rs,68,000, the plaintiffs/ petitioners are liable to pay the remaining amount of tractor trolley Rs,47,684.80 to him. Resultantly, both the suits instituted by the petitioners were dismissed by the Arbitration Board vide its award dated 21-8-1988.
(a) Thereafter Bashir Ahmad respondent No,1 had filed an application for the recovery of the amount of Rs,47,684.80, outstanding against the petitioners/the amount of tractor trolley, as observed by the Arbitration Board vide its award dated 21-8-1988. The petitioners raised an objection before the Arbitration Board during the trial of the suit that the amount of tractor trolley does not fall within the definition of agricultural produce and the Arbitration Board has no jurisdiction to try the suit for the same amount. This objection of the petitioners. Was overruled by the Arbitration Board and the Board vide its award dated 7-6-1989 decreed the suit of Bashir Ahmad respondent No,1 with regard to his amount of Rs,47,684.80. The above said orders dated 21- 8-1988 and 7-6-1989 have been assailed through the instant writ petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the subsequent suit filed by Bashir Ahmad, respondent No,1 was not triable by respondent No,2/Arbitration Board as it lacked jurisdiction to try the same.
3. Conversely, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner have been twee-Folly opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No,1, contending that the petitioners appeared before the Arbitration Board and the case was decided on oath, therefore, the suits were decided on oath and the Board had observed that the amount in dispute Rs,47,684.80 is outstanding against the present petitioners and they are liable to pay the same.
4. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
5. Before proceeding further it would be appropriate to reproduce the relevant provisions of section 24 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978, which are as under:-- "24. Arbitration Board.--- (1) The Government may, by Notification direct that all or any of the disputes, other than a dispute to which all the parties are dealers, arising in a notified market area, and relating to such matters connected with agricultural produce as may be prescribed shall be referred to a Board of Arbitrators constituted under this Ordinance in such manner, for such period and subject to such provisions as may be prescribed.
(2) The Board shall receive and record evidence, and shall have power to administer oaths to parties and witnesses, and, on requisition in writing signed by the Chairman of the Board, the Magistrate authorised by the District Magistrate in this behalf shall issue necessary processes for the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents and material objects required by the Board, and may enforce the said processes as if they were processes for attendance and for production before himself.
6. Rule 50 of the Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1979 provides:--
(1) Where any dispute arises between buyer and seller of agricultural produce of any kind, including disputes regarding the quality or weight or price of the agricultural produce, regarding the allowances of wrapping for containers, for dirt or for impurities or about deductions to be affected due to any reason or in regard to unfixed bargain (Mudda), the party or parties aggrieved may refer the dispute for settlement thereof in accordance with the provision hereinafter provides: ' Provided that the Board of Arbitrators shall not entertain any dispute pertaining to unfixed bargain (Mudda), where a written agreement has not been executed between the buyer and seller.
(2) to (15) ..................................................................
7. From the bare reading of the above provisions of law it reveals that Arbitration Board has the jurisdiction only to entertain the disputes relating to or connected with agricultural produce including allowance of wrapping for containers, for dirt or for impurities, etc.
8. Agricultural produce has been defined in section 2(a) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Ordinance, 1978, which is reproduced below:-- "2(a) 'Agricultural produce' means---
(i) barley and its Atta, Sattu, Bhusa;
(ii) Bajra (grains) and its Atta;
(iii) cotton unginned (Phutti), cotton ginned (lint), cotton waste;
(iv) chillies (green, dry and ground);
(v) fodders, viz. Senji, Lucern, Shaftal, Berseem, Shalgham, Guara, Chari, Bajra, maize, Javi, Barley, wheat, Jowar (green and dry) and their seeds, Methi, Metha, Swank, Oats, Ajwain;
(vi) Fruits and vegetables (fresh and dry) and their squashes, jams, pickles, cordials, Marmalades, Chutnies, sauce, jellies;
(vii) firewood and tanning bark;
(viii) gram (whole and split) and its Chollia, Atta, Kera, Surri, Bura, Wanda;
(ix) Juts (seed and fibre);
(x) Jowar (grains) and its Atta;
(xi) poultry including turkeys (dressed or otherwise), fish and livestock products, viz. Beef, mutton, hides and skins (dry and wet), bones, bone meals, feeds, wool, hairs, eggs, cheese, butter, Desi Ghee, milk and curd (Dehi);
(xii) Mehndi (leaves and powder);
(xiii) maize (grains), maize cobs (dry and green) and its Atta, starch, sugar (glucose), glutten, meals and wastes;
(xiv) oilseeds, viz. Cotton seed, linseed, Sarson, Raya, Toria, Taramira, soyabeen, sunflower, Til, groundnut, castor, palm and . Their oils, oil-cakes, hulls, meals feeds, vegetable Ghee;
(xv) (vi) pulses (whole and split), viz. Moong, Mash, Masoor, Moth, Raj Mash, Arhar, Lobia, gram and other beans;
(xvi) (xvi) rice (paddy), rice (cleaned), rice (broken), phak, Parali, hulls, husks (rice silver);
(xvii) sugarcane and its products, viz, Gur, Shakkar, sugar Desi and refined, molasses, sugarcane juice; (xviii) tobacco leaves, tobacco cured and its snuff or Naswar and Guraku; and
(xix) wheat and its Atta, Maida, Suji, Dalia, starch, Chokar, bran, Bhusa.
9. The Board will decide all disputes arising in notified market area other than a dispute to which all parties were dealers. In the instant case all parties are not the dealers, therefore, the Board was competent to adjudicate upon the matters with regard to the disputes arising out of agricultural produce. In this context reliance can be placed on case of Manzoor Hussain v. Board of Arbitrators, Market Committee, Khanewal and another 1984 CLC 1585.
10. The objection of jurisdiction of Arbitration Board was raised by the petitioners and their objection was ruled out by the Board itself and it has been held in case of Mehr Sakhi Muhammad v. Board of Arbitrators and another 1990 SCM R 1595 that objection to jurisdiction of Arbitration Board if not raised before the Arbitration Board itself which was a proper body for appraisal of evidence relating thereto and its opinion was necessary for adjudication upon the question of jurisdiction.
The dictum laid down in the above-referred case has been followed by the petitioners and the Board has opined that it has the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute.
11. In the instant case, the subsequent suit filed by Bashir Ahmad, respondent No,1 for the recovery of amount of Rs,47,684.80 for the tractor trolley does not fall within the definition of agricultural produce, already referred in para. No,8 above. The tractor trolley is a machinery/equipment for the purpose of cultivation and transportation of agricultural produce.
12. The learned counsel for respondent No,1 when confronted with the above legal proposition, has not been able to satisfy this Court. The award has been issued against the petitioners with regard to the amount of Rs,47,684.80 of tractor trolley and this dispute is not triable by the, Arbitration Board and the Board has -exceeded its jurisdiction by entertaining the abovesaid suit, therefore, the judgment/award passed by the Arbitration Board is declared to have been passed without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Resultantly, the writ petition is accepted and the order impugned dated 7-6-1989 is set aside and the application titled Bashir Ahmad v. Ghulam Mustafa and Ghulam Murtaza, Commission Agents, Grain Market, Chishtian for the recovery of amount of Rs,47,684.80 is dismissed.