M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD. AND ANOTHER versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 8 S.C.R. 621 · Decided: 14-05-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 8 S.C.R. 621 
~ 
M/S. DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD. AND ANOTHER 
A 
v 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5779 Of 2005) 
MAY 14, 2008 
B 
+ 
[S.B. SINHA AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 226 - Dispute over levy 
of market fee on Zafrani Zarda, a manufactured form of tobacco 
- Writ petition - High Court disposed of same without consider- c 
ing significant questions raised by the parties - Hence, matter 
remitted back to High Court for decision afresh - Bihar Agricul-
tural Produce Market Act, 1960 - ss.3,4 and 4A. 
Dispute arose as regards the validity of levy of mar-
-+ 
ket fee on Zafrani Zarda, a manufactured form of tobacco, D 
in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Agricultural Pro-
duce Market Act, 1960. 
The definition of 'agricultural produce' underwent a 
change so as to include the 'manufactured goods' there-
E 
from by way of amendment on 30th April, 1982. Again with 
effect from 30th April, 1982, Zafrani Zarda was inserted in 
the Schedule appended to the said Act, by reason of a 
Notification dated 31st July, 1991, issued by the State of 
...._ 
Bihar. The State Government issued another Notification 
being S.O. 220 dated 31st August, 1992 for regulation of F 
sale, purchase, storage and process of all agricultural pro-
duce mentioned in the Schedule of the Act in the areas 
covering 122 market committees including the Respon-
dent Market Committee. 
Questioning the orders of assessment of market fee G 
relying on and on the basis of the said G.Os., by the As-
sessing Authority, Appellants filed writ petitions before the 
High Court. In the said writ petitions, inter alia it was con-
621 
H 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 8 S.C.R. 
tended that the market fee be assessed from the date of 
coming into force of the Amendment i.e. 30th April, 1982 
from which date the definition of 'agricultural produce' had 
been amended. The High Court held that the market fee 
would be leviable with effect from 31st August, '1992. 
Hence the present appeal. 
Remitting the matter to High Court, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court failed to take into consid-
eration the important question raised by the petitioners 
that the Notifications were ultra vires the Act and/or would 
have no application in relation to Zafrani Zarda. It also did 
not take into consideration the contention of the Market 
Committee that having regard to the provisions of s.4-A 
of the Act, ss. 3 and 4 thereof were not required to be com-
plied with. The questions raised by the parties are of sig-
nificance. They should have been dealt with by the High 
Court. [Paras 7,8] [625-E,F,G] 
2. The judgment of High Court is set aside and the 
matters are remitted to the High Court for consideration 
·and disposal thereof afresh. If any application is filed by 
the parties heretO raising additional contentions, the same 
may be considered by the High Court on their own mer-
its. [Para 9) [626~AJ 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5779 
of 2005 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 7.10.2002 of 
the High Court of Judicature at Patna in C.W.J.C. No. 10145/ 
2001 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 5782 of 2005 and 5785 of 2005. 
Rakesh DWidedi, Anoop G. Chaudhary, Vijay Hansaria, 
S.8. Sanyal, R.G. Padia, Mathai M. Paikeday, Shobha Dikshit, 
H K.K. Mohan, Amit Kr. Singh, Shantan':J Krishna, Mukti 
~ 
+ 
+ 
MIS. DHARAMPAL ANOTHER v. STATE OF 
623 
BIHAR AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 
>-
Chowdhary, Anant Prakash, Sneha Kalita, Sanjai K. Pathak, 
A 
Vivek Narayan, Ajit Kumar Pande, Sunil Roy, Madhurima Tatia, 
Anil Katiyar, V.K. Verma, Shishir Pinaki, Amit Singh, P.L Jose, 
Pradeep Misra, Daleep Dhayani, Gopal Singh, Anukul Raj, 
Manish Kr. and Chandan Kr. for the Appearing parties. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
"-t 
S.8. SINHA, J. 1. These three appeals involve a question 
as to whether the levy of market fee on Zafrani Zarda in terms of 
the provisions of Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960 
(for short the Act) is valid which arise out of a common order c 
dated 7th October, 2002 passed by the High Court of Patna in 
three writ petitions filed by the appellants. 
2. Writ petitioners are manufacturers of ZafraniZarda. It 
.. 
is indisputably a manufactured form of tobacco . 
-of: 
The question as to whether Zafrani Zarda is manufactured D 
item of tobacco or not came up for consideration before this 
Court in Agricultural Produce Market Committee and others 
v. Mis. Prabh
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.