HAILEYBURIA TEA ESTATES LTD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are against three decisions by three different learned Judges of this Court in three writ petitions on the same question. One learned Judge considered the question in some detail and dismissed the writ petition; another learned Judge just followed the aforesaid decision and dismissed the writ petition before him too; but the third learned Judge took a contrary view on the same question without noticing the two earlier decisions and without considering the question in any detail. Consequently, he allowed the writ petition and gave certain directions. Against this last decision, the State has filed an appeal; and against the other two decisions, the petitioners in the respective writ petitions have also filed appeals.

(2.) The common question in these cases is whether tea is a "food crop" coming under S.20 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1963. S.20 of the Act reads

(3.) Though some argument has been advanced by the counsel on both sides as to what is "agriculture" and some decisions like Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal, Calcutta v. Bency Kumar Sahas Roy ( AIR 1957 SC 768 ) have also been cited, the discussion of Bhagwati J. regarding the meaning of "agriculture" may not be essential in the present cases. Raising and rearing of tea plants is agriculture: and we have only to consider whether tea is a food crop. There is also no dispute that the vehicles are designed and used for agricultural operations.