BINDRA FEED MILLS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions raised in this writ petition No. 12614 of 1990 as well as writ petitions Nos. 7460 of 1987, 6927, 7574, 6170, 7082, 6592, 8714, 9902, 9857, 10947 of 1988, 4736, 5320, 8508, 9539, 6626 of 1989, 13054, 15193, 13220, 16187, 11840, 10159, 1306, 13056, 13055, 10200, 9557 of 1990 and 653, 4912, 8924, 6113, 571, 8768, 661, 2962, 2664, 5372 and 3214 of 1991 can be fairly regarded as common questions of law. Consequently these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The conspectus of the facts giving rise to these petitions, in order to answer the question raised; can be noticed with brevity, from the present writ petition. The respondents sought the recovery of market fee due from the petitioners for the agricultural produce brought by them for the manufacture of poultry feed. In the other connected petitioner market fee was claimed from the petitioners for the agricultural produce brought for manufacturing of other items like Dal from gram, wheat flour from wheat, besan from gram, yarn from cotton, oil from seeds, oil from mustard (saron), oil from mustard (toria) etc.

(3.) The petitioners are registered as small scale units with the Director of Industries for the manufacture of various items from the agricultural produce. Various processes are undertaken in order to manufacture the aforesaid items. In some of the manufactured articles only agricultural produce is used while in others after processing the agricultural produce and mixing it with some other products or materials a new product is produced. For instance poultry feed which is manufactured, maize is one of the constituents i.e. also an agricultural produce which after processing and after mixing with various other articles of items, finally cattle feed is manufactured and sold as such. The manufactured items as a result of production are not necessarily agricultural produce.