KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI KANPUR, ETC versus GANGA DAL MILL AND CO. AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1985] 1 S.C.R. 787 · Decided: 25-09-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
, 
' 
187 
KlUSHI tJTPADAN MANDI SAMITI KANPUR, ETC . 
v. 
GANGA DAL MILL AND CO. AND ORS. ETC. 
September 25, 1984 
[D.A. DESAI, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND V. KHALID, JJ.) 
U.P. Kris/Ji Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964, Secs. 2 (a) and 2 (I} & 
State Government Notification dated January 20, 1982. 
'legume' notified-•Specified agricultural Produce-Dwi Daliya Utpadan 
-Whether comprehenJs both the whole grain of legumes and its split part 
that is dal. 
Words and Phrases •Legume'-'Dwi Da/iya Utpadan'-'Such items of 
produce of agriculture as are specified in the Schedule' - Meaning of Secs. 2 (a) 
and 2 (I) U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964. 
Practice and Procedure : Disputed question of fact-Deci!ion by Supreme 
Court-When permissible. 
The Appellant-Market Committee levied market fee on the transac-
tion of sale of da/ of various legumes by the respondents, on the ground that 
they were •specified agricultural produce' and the transactions of sale in 
respect of them by the respondents in the Market Area would be exigible to 
the levy of market fee. 
The respondents opposed the aforesaid leVy contending that they were 
manufacturing in their factory dal from various iegumes and therefore, not 
only they were not producers of agricultural commodities, but in view of the 
description of legumes set out in the Schedule of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan 
Mandi Adhiniyam 1964, the dal of such legumes in the Processed form was 
not a specified agricultural produce and therefore, a transaction of sale in 
respect of them at the hands of the respondents even if it takes place in the 
Market Area would not permit the Market Committee to levy market fee on 
such transaction and that they were not liable to buy the same. It was 
further contended that unless the agricultural produce specified in the 
Schedule to the Act was notified as a specified agricultural produce in respect 
of a particular Market Area, the Market C0mmittee having jurisdiction in 
the Market Area would not be entitled to levy market fee on the transaction 
of sale of such agricultural produce. 
The respondents approached the High Court by filing writ petitions 
under Art. 226 contending that the Market Committee continue to levy 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
a~ket fee on the transaction ofdaf and th'i\t it h1d no auth.Jrity t,J do so. 
R 
A 
B 
c 
0 
E 
F 
G 
788 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(198SJ 1 s.c R 
The High Court held that lengume in its split form was not the same thing as 
legume specified in the Schedule and therefore, in the absence of a speci-
fication, dal of any of the legumes enumerated in the Schedule cannot b~ syid 
to be specified agricultural produCe'. and therefore, any trr nsaction of s<ile 
in respect of them was not exigible to the levy of market fee. 
During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions the State Govern-
ment issued in execise of the power conferred by Sec, 4.i\ of the Act, a noti-
fication dated 20th January, 1982 which substituted the split form of legume 
for the legume whole grain as specified agricultural produce. 
After the issuance of the aforesaid notification, a fresh batch of writ 
petitions were filed challenging both the validity of the notification as also 
the eligibility of the Market Con11nittee to levy market fee on the transaction 
of sale in respect of dal of legun1es. It was contended in the writ petitions 
that merely amending or adding to the list of agricultural produce set out in 
the Schedule by itself without anything more would not enable the Market 
Committee to levy market fee on the sale of. such agricultural produce 
because before levying market fee the agricultural produce has to be notified 
as specified agricultural produce by issuing either a notification under Sec. 6 
or addition or alteration in exyrcise of the power under Sec. 8 of the Act. It 
was fu":"ther contended that after the amendment of the Schedule by the 
impugned notification, fresh notification either under Sec 6 or Sec. 8 having 
not been issued, the agricultural prod Lice introduced in the Schedule namely, 
dal of various legumes have not becon1e specified agricultural produce and 
therefore any sale in respect of such agricultural produce even in the Market 
Area wi11 not enable the market Committe to levy market fee nor would it 
obJige persons or parties to the transaction of sale to pay the same. 
The aforesaid contentions found favour with the IJigh Court which 
allowed the writ petition5 and quashed the notice issued by

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