R GUNALAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is disposed of at the stage of preliminary hearing after notice to respondents and after hearing Counsel for parties.

(2.) The petitioner is a timber merchant at Vellore in North Arcot district of Tamil Nadu. He is aggrieved by the demand notices dt. 14.8.1978 and 28.9.1978 issued by the Secretary of the 2nd respondent-Market Committee. Haliyal in Uttar Kannada dist of Karnataka State. The two notices are produced with the petition as Ex. A and B. Ex.A informs the petitioner that timber and bamboo had been declared as notified agricultural produce under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and as the petitioner had purchased the timber and bamboo within the jurisdiction of the market area of that Committee he should take out a licence as required under the provisions of the Act before operating in the marke-area either as buyer, seller, trader of or Commission Agent, etc. It is also required in the said notice to pay Market Fee under S, 65 (2) of the Act. They have assessed the Market fee at Rs. '198-00 and licence fee at Rs. 150-00 for the year 1977-78 and Rs. 165-00 for the year 1978-79, thus there is a total demand for Rs. 513-00. Ex.-B is the same, except that it is only a reminder. It is referred to as notice No. 2 demanding the same sums totalling to Rs. 513-00. As the petitioner did not comply with the two demand notices, he was prosecuted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Haliyal under Ss. 117 and 122 of the Act, It is at that stage that the petitioner approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution inter-alia contend ing that he is not a trader in the market area of the 2nd respondent-Market Committee and therefore, he is not required to take out a licence as he is a permanent resident of Tamil Nadu doing business at Vellore and further he being a casual buyer at the auctions held in the forest situated in the market area, he cannot be treated to be a person doing business in the market area. It is also contended that the purchase made of timber in 1977-78 and 1978-79 cannot be construed as agricultural produce, because timber by no stretch of imagination can be said to be agricultural produce as no cultivation as such takes place. In that circumstance, the prayer is for quashing the two demand notices and also the proceedings before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Haliyal, in C.C.No. 538/78.

(3.) The contentions advanced by the petitioner are liable to be rejected. In the Act, by S. 2 (5), buyer or purchaser is denned to mean a person who buys or agrees to buy goods. By sub-sec. (18) of S. 2 of the Act 'market' is denned to mean any notified area declared or deemed to be declared as market yard or area under sub-sec. (2) of S.6. Similarly, sub-sec. (4) qf S. 2.of the Act defines 'seller' to mean a person who sells or agrees to sell goods, while sub sec. (48) of S. 2 of the Act defines a trader to mean a person who buys notified agricultural produce either for himself or as agent of one or more persons for the purpose of selling, processing, manufacturing or for any other purpose, except for the purpose of domestic consumption.