H.S. JAYANNA AND BROS. AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 2 S.C.R. 261 · Decided: 06-03-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
H.S. JAY ANNA AND BROS. AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 
MARCH 6, 2002 
[V.N. KHARE AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.) 
Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966: 
Karnataka Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984: 
Scope of Order and Act-Object of Procurement Order explained--
Held, order and Act deal with same subject-But do not cover the same 
field-Thus there is no inconsistency between the Act and the Order. 
A 
B 
c 
The appellants in these appeals were selling rice to respondent-
Government under Karnataka Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 (Control D 
Order ). They successfully challenged before Karnataka High Court the 
validity of market fee on rice by the Marketing Committees constituted under 
the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) 
Act, 1966. Appeals preferred by respondent-State were allowed by the Division 
Bench of the High Court which dismissed the writ petitions of the appellant. E 
The question for consideration in these appeals is whether the provisions of 
the Marketing Act are repugnant to the Control Order and if so what is its 
effect. In the connected writ petitions same question is involved. 
Dismissing the appeals and writ petitions, the Court 
HELD: l. The Karnataka Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 and 
the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 do 
deal with the same subject but do not cover the same field. There is no conflict 
between them. They do not occ_upy the same field. [271-GJ 
F 
2. The Karnataka Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 has been issued G 
with the object of procurement of rice and to see that rice is made available 
for public distribution and no artificial scarcity is created and the people do 
not suffer because of boarding by certain unreasonable elements. The entire 
field of regulating the purchase and sale of paddy or the rice produced out of 
the paddy is not covered under the Control Order. The provisions of the H 
261 
262 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2002) 2 S.C.R. 
A Marketing Act do not trench upon the field covered by the Control order. 
There is no inconsistency between the Control order and the Marketing Act. 
They do not cover the same field and therefore the question of any 
inconsistency, repugnancy or the Marketing Act being ineffectual in terms 
of Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act in view of the Control Order 
issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act would not arise. 
B 
[270-D; 271-B] 
3. The Control Order deals with the compulsory acquisition of 113 of 
rice of each variety produced by a miller at a purchase price fixed by the 
Government. It requires the miller to supply to the Government or its and 
C purchase agent and deliver the procured rice at a notified place. It does not 
deal with the sale and purchase of the remaining 2/3rd rice except that the 
miller is not permitted to remove the stock of rice from the mill premises 
without delivery of rice to the Government or its purchase agent and without 
obtaining a release certificate required to be taken under Clause 8 of the said 
order. It does not deal with the marketing or the facilities to be provided to 
D the grower, seller and purchaser of paddy in the market area or to the seller 
or purchaser of the rice. The Control Order is thus limited in operation. The 
Marketing Act provides for the regulation of marketing of agricultural 
produce (which the rice is) and the establishment and administration of 
markets for agricultural produce and matters connected therewith in the State 
E of Kamataka. (271-C-E] 
The Marketing Act deals with the entire gamut of marketing of 
agricultural produce starting from the establishment of the market 
committees, markets, declaration of market area, market yard, market sub 
yard, regulation of marketing of specified agricultural produce therein and 
F for obtaining a licence under the Act. The process of appointment/electing 
the market committees, the powers and duties of the market committee 
(s.63(1)), the facilities to be provided by the market committee (s.63(2)) and 
the levy of market fee (s. 65). The Marketing Act does not deal with any of 
the provisions made in the Control Order. The Marketing Act deals with a 
G cognate matter on the same subject but not the field which is already occupied 
by the Control Order. (271-F) 
Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd v. State of Bihar and Ors., (1999) 8 SCC 620, 
explained and distinguished. 
H 
Food Corporation 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.