LASHMI DRY FISH TRADERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ appeals a question of general interest and frequent occurrence is raised for decision. The question is whether the definition of 'livestock' in S. 2(v) of the A.P. Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) takes within its scope and ambit also 'dry fish' and the declaration made by the Government under S.3(3) of the Act specifying 'dry fish' as 'livestock' in Schedule II to the notification of the State Government published in the A.P. Gazette dt. 7-11-1978 is valid.

(2.) The writ petitioners are dealers in dry fish. A notice was issued to the petitioners by the Agricultural Market Committees, Itchpuram, asking them to obtain necessary licence by paying the necessary fee under S. (91)(7(1)?) of the Act on the ground that they were carrying on business of purchase and sale in agricultural produce. But the petitioners did not obtain the necessary licence and carried on their business in 1980. The petitioner sent a reply to the Agricultural Market Committee informing them that the business in dry fish does not come within the purview of the Act and therefore there was no necessity to obtain any licence. As the petitioners continued to carry on their business without obtaining any licence under S. 7(1) of the Act, criminal cases were instituted against the petitioners and some others. Aggrieved against the prosecution the petitioners filed the writ petitions. The learned single Judge (Raghuvir, J. dismissed the writ petitions) holding that the word 'fish' in S. 2(v) of the Act includes 'dry fish' also and so the notification was valid. This indeed, is the genesis of the writ appeals.

(3.) The only question for decision is whether 'dry fish' is livestock falling within the definition of livestock in S. 2(v) of the Act. It is, therefore, necessary to read the definition of 'livestock' in S. 2(v) of the Act.