GUPTA PUMP STORE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short question that arises for consideration in these six writ petitions, C.W.P. Nos. 2080, 2081, 2085, 2740, 4741 of 1976 and 1155 of 1977, is as to how far cotton waste falls within the scope of cotton (ginned or unginned) as mentioned at No. 17 of the Schedule to the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act). It arises on the following facts.

(2.) The Petitioners who are carrying on their business at Panipat and Rohtak were served with notices under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Act asking them to take out licences under Section 10 of the Act and to pay the market fee on the business and trade they were carrying on within the area of the Market Committees, Panipat and Rohtak by bringing cotton waste from outside the areas of the said Committees. The Petitioners impugned these notices primarily on the ground that cotton waste does not fall within the scope of 'cotton' (ginned or unginned) as stated in the Schedule referred to above. This stand of the Petitioners is controverted by the Respondent-Committees on the plea that cotton waste is only a variety of cotton and thus would come within the scope of the word 'cotton' as it occurs in the Schedule. Support for this stand is also sought from the definition of 'cotton' as provided for in the Punjab Cotton Ginning and Processing Act, 1953.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties. I do not find any substance in the stand of the Respondent-Committees. The plea of the Petitioners is directly supported by at least two Division Bench judgments of Madras and Gujarat High Court respectively reported as Sapt Taxtile Products (India) Private Ltd. Bombay V/s. The State of Madras, 1965 16 STC 267and Arvind Mills Ltd. V/s. State of Gujarat 18 STC 311 In the first judgment it has been observed as under: