LexKRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI AND ORS. versus PILLIBHIT PANTNAGAR BEEJ LTD. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI AND ORS. v. PILLIBHIT PANTNAGAR BEEJ LTD. AND ANR. NOVEMBER 28, 2003 [V.N. KHARE, CJ. AND S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMAJ'JAN, JJ.] UP. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964; Sections 2(a), 2(y), 11, 17(iii)-Seeds Act, 1966,: Section 2(11)-Seeds Rules, 1968, Rule 2 (e) - C Wheat and wheat seed - Respondents dealing i_n purchase and sale of certified seeds of wheat-Levy of Market Fee under the State Act- Competency of-Held, wheat and wheat seed are different-Hence, State is not competent to levy market fee since seeds of wheat is not a specified agricultural produre under the State Act-On harmonious reading of State Act and Central Act, respondents are not traders under the State Act- _ D Essential Commodities Act, 1955; Section 3-Seeds Control Order, , 1983-Food grains Movement Restriction (Exemption of Seeds) Orders, 1970. Respondents are engaged in business -of buyfog, processing and selling of certified wheat seeds. The appellant-Market Committee E issued notices to the respondents for levying market fees under section 17 (iii) (b) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (U.r. Act) on the ground that the respondents are dealing in wheat, a specified 'agricultural produce' under section 2(a) of the U.P. Act. The respondents replied to the notices of the appellants that they are F dealing with certified seeds of wheat and not wheat and hence are not liable to market fee under the U.P. Act. The appellants rejected· the representations and passed an order demanding market fees under 'the U.P. Act. The respondents filed a Writ Petition before High Court for quashing the order of the appellants. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order of the appellants following the decision G in State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Agriculture Input Dealers Association, AIR (1996) SC 2179. In appeal, the appellants contended that the market fee is levied under the U.P. Ad on purchases of wheat by the respondents and not H on sale of certified seeds; that wheat is an agricultural .produce notified '.l.14 KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI v. PILLIBHIT PANTNAGAR BEEJ LTD. 345 under the heading 'cereal' chargeable to market fee under the U.P. A Act; that cereal is a seed in itself; and that there is no difference between wheat and wheat seed. i The respondents contended that they are dealing only in certified seeds of wheat and not in purchase or sale of wheat; that the breeder B seeds of wheat are purchased from Agricultural Universities for processing them into certified seeds; that the seeds of wheat are not wheat; and that wherever seeds are intended to be notified, it has been specifically mentioned as seeds in the Schedule to the U.P. Act and since the seeds of wheat are not notified, it cannot be subjected to market fee under the U.P. Act C Dismissing the appeal, the Court Per AR. Lakshmanan, J (for himself and V.N Khare, CJ): HELD: 1.1. A perusal of the Schedule to the U.P. Krishi Utpadan D Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (U.P. Act) shows that wherever seeds have been intended to be notified, it has been specifically mentioned as see~s. In case of wheat, the Schedule does not provide or notify seed of wheat and thus the seeds of wheat are not specified in the Schedule and thus not covered by the definition of 'agricultural produce'. The object of E legislature was to notify only those seeds which are different from the produce itself. 1360-G-Hl 1.2 The ratio decidendi of the decision in State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Agriculture Input Dealers Association is squarely applica~le F where the appellants seek to give a wide connotation to the words· in the Schedule. Giving a wide interpretation is not possible and since wheat seed is not included in the Schedule, the Market Committee is not allowed to levy market fee on its purchase. As the Market Committee plays no role in the trade of the respondents' seeds, it may G not be allowed to levy the market fee. (364-F-G-Hl 1.3. There is no nexus whether the seed has been chemically treated or not and the levy of market fees. Since the seed is a separate ~ommodity from grain, the same is not covered under the Schedule of the U.P. Act and as such 110 market fee is leviable over .the sale or H 346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A purchase of the same. (366-C-D) 1.4. The seeds are not specified agricultural produce under the · . ' ' provisions of the Act and th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.