KISHAN LAL AND ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

Citation: [1990] 2 S.C.R. 142 · Decided: 23-03-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KISHAN LAL AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. 
MARCH 23, 1990 
B 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY AND R.M. SAHAI, JJ.] 
Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961: Section 40 
and Schedule-Market fee-Levy of-On Khandsari, Shakkar, Gur 
and Sugar.as agricultural produce-Validity of. 
C 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 19, 301, 304, 246, 
254(2), Seventh Schedule, List I Entry 52, List II Entries 28, 66 and List 
III Entry 33-Market Fee-Levy of-On Khandsari, Shakkar, Gur 
and Sugar as agricultural produce-State Legislature-Competency 
of-Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 Section 40 and 
Schedule-Repugnancy and validity of. 
D 
Words and Phrases: 'Sugar'-'Agricultural produce'-Meaning 
of. 
In the Writ Petition filed in this Court, the validity of Rajasthan 
Agricultnral Produce Markets-Act, 1961, levying market-fee on sale 
E 
and purchase of agricultnral produce was challenged for lack of legisla-
tive competence, and arbitrary inclusion of Khandsari, Shakkar, Gur 
and Sugar as agricultural produce in the Schedule. It was contended 
that inclusion of sugar was arbitrary inasmuch as it being a declared 
commodity of public importance under Entry 52 of List I of Schedule 
VII, the State Legislature was precluded from legislating on it and that 
F 
being a mill or factory produce, it could not be deemed to be 
agricultural produce, which was basically confined to produce of or 
from soil. 
Dismissing the Petitions, this Court, 
G 
HELD: 1.1 Sugar is one of the items which was included in the 
Schedule to the Rajasthan A~ricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, 
statutorily, right from the inception. Such inclusion is found in many 
States. Whether it was subsequently deleted or re-included or re-
grouped or was added later was immaterial, as Section 40 of the Act 
empowered State Government to amend or include any item in the 
H . Schedule of agricultural produce. Existence of such delegated power is 
142 
/ J __ 
·-
I 
_/ 
KISHAN LAL v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
143 
usual feature of the statutes. No illegality or infirmity could be pointed 
out in it. Any challenge. therefore, founded on exc.essive delegation of 
legislative power was misconceived. [ 144H, 145A-B] 
1.2 The definition of the word "agricultural produce" in the Act 
inclndes all produce whether agricultural, horticultural, animal 
husbandry or otherwise as specified in the Schedule. The legislative 
power to add or include and define a word even artificially, apart, the 
definition which is not exhaustive but inclusive, neither excludes any 
item produced in mill or factories nor it confines its width to produce 
from soil. Nor switch over from indigenous method of producing any-
thing to scientific or mechanical method changes its character. To say, 
therefore, that sugar being produced in mill or factories could not be 
deemed to be agricultnral produce is both against the statutory 
language and judicial interpretation of similar provisions of the Act in 
statntes of other States. [145C-D, F] 
Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab, [1979] 3 SCR 1217; 
Ramesh Chandra v. State of U.P., [1980] 3 SCR 166; Rathi Khandsari 
Udyog v. State of U.P., [1982] 2 SCR 966; Sreenivisa General Traders 
v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 1264; Ramesh Chandra v. 
U.P. State [1980] 3 SCR 194 and State of U.P. v. Ganga Das Mill, 
[1985] SCR87-88, referred to. 
Halsbury's Law of England, Vol. I and Paragraph 1845, referred 
to. 
2. In view of the settled position of law that sugar legislations 
are within the scope of Entry 33 of Concurrent List, no further dis-
cussion on clash between Entry 52 of List I of Vllth Schedule and 
Entry 28 of List II is necessary. There is no repugnancy in the Cen-
tral and State legislation. Even if there would have been any, the 
Act having received assent of th_e President is fully protected by Article 
254(2) of the Constitution. [1468-D] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
Choudhary Tika Ram and Others v. State of U.P., [1956] SCR 
393, foilowed. 
G 
ORIGINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Writ Petition 
No. 1555 of 1979 etc. etc. 
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia). 
H 
A 
B 
144 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1990] 2 S.C.R. 
D.N. Dwivedi and Sarwa Mitter for the Petitioners. 
Dr. L.M. Singhvi, B.D. Sharma, Shri Narain, Sandeep Narain, 
Shrid Rizvi and D.K. Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. SABAi, J. Validity of Rajasthan Agricultural Produce 
Markets Act, 1961 {for brevity the Act) levy

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