KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI KANPUR KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMTTI KANPUR Vs. GANGA DAL MILL AND CO:BRIJ MOHAN VISHNU KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER the whole includes the parts is the core question. WHETHER legume, whole grain, when notified as a 'specified agricultural produce' within the meaning of the expression in S. 2(t) of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi, Adhiniyam, 1964 ('Act' for short) would also comprehend its split folds or parts, commercially called dal so as to enable Mandi Samiti (Market Committee for convenience of reference) to levy market fee under S. 17 of the Act on the transaction of sale of dal of legumes specified in the schedule to the Act, is the narrow question that falls to be determined in this group of appeals.

(2.) APPELLANT Market Committee levied market fee on the transaction of sale of dal of various legumes by the respondents, asserting that they were specified agricultural produce and the transactions of sale in respect of them by the respondents in the Market Area would be exigible to the levy of market fee. The respondents contended that they were manufacturing in their factory dal from various legumes and therefore, not only they were not producers of agricultural commodity but in view of the description of legumes set out in the Schedule, the dal of such legumes in the processed form is not a specified agricultural produce and therefore, a transaction of sale in respect of them at the hands of the respondents even if it takes place in the Market Area would not permit the appellant to levy market fee on such transaction and they were not liable to pay the same. The respondents contend that unless the agricultural produce specified in the Schedule to the Act is notified as a specified agricultural produce in respect of a particular Market Area, the Market Committee having jurisdiction in the Market Area will not be entitled to levy market fee on the transaction of sale of such agricultural produce. In short they say that even if legumes set out in the Schedule are specified agricultural produce, the dal processed therefrom in the factory could not become specified agricultural produce unless it is so specified and therefore, the Market Committee had no authority to levy market fee on the transaction of sale of dal. The respondents approached the High Court of Allahabad by filing writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution raising myriad contentions including the one as herein set out.

(3.) AFTER the notification dated 20/01/1982 was issued, a fresh batch of Writ Petition were filed challenging both the validity of the notification as also the eligibility of the Market Committee to levy market fee on the transaction of sale in respect of dal of <PG>521</PG> legumes. It was contended that 'merely amending or adding to the list of agricultural produce set out in the Schedule by itself without anything more would not enable the Market Committee to levy market fee on the sale of such agricultural produce because before levying market fee the agricultural produce has to be notified as specified agricultural producue by issuing either a notification under S. 6 or addition or alteration in exercise of power under S. 8 of the Act. It was contended that after the amendment of the Schedule by the impugned notification fresh notification either under S. 6 or S. 8 having not been issued, the agricultural produce introduced in the Schedule, namely, dal of various legumes have not become specified agricultural produce since the amendment of the Schedule and therefore, any sale in respect of such agricultural produce even in the Market Area will not enable the Market Committee to levy market fee nor would it oblige persons or parties to the transaction of sale to pay the same. This contention equally found favour with the High court. It was held that till the agricultural produce under the heading 11 Legumes' set out in the Schedule since the amendment of 20/01/1982 are notified as specified agricultural produce, the Market Committee was not entitled to levy and collect market fee on the transaction of sale of such agricultural produce. The High court accordingly allowed the petitions and quashed the notice issued by the Market Committee raising the demand for market fee.