ITC LIMITED KOLKATA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions are by persons who have dealings in the notified agricultural produce, as the expression occurs within the meaning of sub-section (28) of Section 2 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966. (for short, 'the Act' ).

(2.) WHILE most of the petitioners are in fact what is known as 'market functionaries', within the meaning of this phrase as it occurs in sub-section (21)of Section 2 of the Act and are also licensed market functionaries, having sought for and obtained licences to function so within the notified area in respect of the Agricultural Produce Market committees (APMC), only the petitioner in W. P. No. 39753 of 2004, namely M/s. ITC Limited, is not a licensed market functionary within the market area of the APMC, Doddaballapur, within which area this petitioner has some activities in relation to the notified agricultural produces namely wheat and other produces.

(3.) PETITIONERS have approached this Court even at the threshold praying for certain relief and the common cause made by all these petitioners is with regard to the liability for payment of any market fee under the provisions of the Act, particularly under Section 65 of the Act in respect of the activities of stocking of the notified agricultural produce and processing of such produces within the market area. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, while the stand of the respondents is that such activities are also sought to be roped in for levy of market fee under the act, in the light of the amendment effected to the Act under Section 3 of the Amending Act 22 of 2004 and it is also asserted on behalf of the respondents that such amendment has enabled the respective market committees to levy and collect market fee on such activities of stocking and processing of imported notified agricultural produces, the stand of the petitioners is that the amending Act does not achieve this object; that even after the amendment effected to Section 65 of the Act, by addition of second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 65 of the Act, and the two explanations following this proviso, has not achieved the object of creating liability for payment of market fee in respect of the activities of stocking and processing of even the imported notified agricultural produces which are imported into the market area.