LexKRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, NARSINGHPUR versus M/S. SHIV SHAKTI KHANSARI UDYOG AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2012] 10 S.C.R. 416
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, NARSINGHPUR
v.
MIS. SHIV SHAKTI KHANSARI UDYOG AND OTHERS
{Civil Appeal No. 6186 of 2012 etc.)
AUGUST 30, 2012
[G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.]
Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 -
ss.19, 31 rlw s.32 and 36 - Transactions involving purchase
C of sugarcane by sugar factories operating in market areas of
the State - Levy of market fee - Validity- Applicability of the
1972 Mandi Adhiniyam - Respondents operating sugar
factories· in different market areas of the State - Notices
issued by appellant-Market Committees requiring the
D respondents to take licence under the 1972 Mandi Adhiniyam
and pay market fee on purchase of sugarcane from Cane
Growers I Cane Growers Cooperative Societies - Quashed by
High Court - Justification of- Held: Justified - The entire field
of sale and purchase of sugarcane is covered by the 1958
E Sugarcane Act and the Sugarcane Control Order, which are
special legislations -
The 1972 Mandi Adhiniyam on the
other hand generally deals with the sale and purchase of
agricultural produce specified in the Schedule appended to
the Adhiniyam - Even though the 1972 Mandi Adhiniyam is
F a subsequent legislation, the general provisions contained in
the said Adhiniyam cannot be invoked for compelling the
occupier of a factory engaged in the manufacture of sugar to
take licence under s.31 rlw s.32 and pay market fee in terms
of s. 19 because the same are in direct conflict with the
G provisions contained in the 1958 Sugarcane Act and the
Sugarcane Control Order - Plea of appellant that the
provisions of the Sugarcane Control Order cannot prevail over
the 1972 Mandi Adhiniyam because the latter was enforced
after receiving Presidential assent cannot be accepted since
H
416
KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI, NARSINGHPUR v. SHIV 417
SHAKTI KHANSARI UDYOG
the State Government had not reseNed the Adhiniyam for A
Presidential assent on the ground of any repugnancy between
the provisions thereof and the Sugarcane Control Order- The
State Government could not have even thought of any
repugnancy between these statutes because at the relevant
time, sugarcane was not treated as an agricultural produce
B
and was not included in the Schedule appended to the 1972
Mandi Adhiniyam - Madhya Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation
of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1958 - ss. 12, 15, 16, 19,20,21
and 22 - Sugarcane (Control) Order - Clauses 3,4,5,5A and
6 - Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - s. 3.
c
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 254(2) - Presidential
assent under - Nature and scope of - Discussed.
The respondents were operating sugar factories in
different market areas of the State of Madhya Pradesh
D
and purchasing sugarcane from Cane Growers and Cane
Growers' Cooperative Societies. They filed writ petitions
for quashing the notices issued by the appellant-Market
Committees requiring them to take licence under the
Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 [for E
short 'the Market Act'] and to pay market fee on the
purchase of sugarcane. It was pleaded on their behalf
that the provisions of the Market Act were not applicable
to the transactions exclusively governed by the Madhya
Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase)
F
Act, 1958 [for short, 'the Sugarcane Act'] and the
Sugarcane (Control) Order [for short, 'the Control Order']
issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the
Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The appellants
contested the writ petitions pleading that there is no G
conflict between the Market Act on the one hand and the
Sugarcane Act and the Control Order on the other
because the two sets of legislations operate in different
fields and in view of the section 19 of the Market Act, the
respondents were bound to pay market fee on the
H
418
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 10 S.C.R.
A purchase of Sugarcane within the market areas.
The High Court by the impugned order held that
transactions involving the sale and purchase of
sugarcane were governed by Sections 12, 15, 16, 19, 20,
8
21 and 22 of the Sugarcane Act and Clauses 3, 4, 5, SA
and 6 of the Control Order, which are in the nature of
special legislations vis-a-vis the Market Act and, &s such,
market fee could not be levied by the Market Committees.
In the instant appeals filed by the State of Madhya
C Pradesh and the Market Committees, the question which
arose for consideration was whether the proviExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.