LexM/S GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD &ANR. versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 12 S.C.R. 304
A
M/S GUJARAT AMBUJAEXPORTS LTD &ANR.
B
v.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 14184-14185 of 2015)
DECEMBER 9, 2015
(V.GOPALA GOWDA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.]
Uttarakhand Agricultural Produce Marketing
c (Development and Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 2012 - s.
27(c)(iii) and (iv) - Constitutional validity - Legislative
competence of the State Government of Uttarakhand to enact
the said provisions - Held: Primary object of any market
legislation is to ensure that the producer of the agricultural
D produce gets a fair return - Section 27(c)(iii) is against the
scheme of the Act, as it seeks to levy market fee and
development cess even on those units which merely bring
agricultural produce from outside the State into the market
area for carrying out manufacturing- In that there is no sale
E or purchase of the product within the market area per se -
Further, the State Legislature did not have the competence
to enact the impugned provisions which sought to levy market
fee and development cess even on those agricultural
produce which were not being brought into the market for the
F purpose of sale, but for the purpose of manufacture or further
processing - Section 27(c)(iii) is struck down as the same
was enacted by the State Legislature without having the
legislative competence to do so - Order upholding the validity
G of the amendment to s. 27(c)(iii) is set aside- Consequential
action of issuing notice of demand for payment of market
fee and any other orders passed against the appellants are
quashed- However, s. 27(c)(iv) is upheld.
H
Allowing the appeals, the Court
304
GUJARATAMBUJAEXPORTS LTD v. STATE OF
305
UTIARAKHAND
HELD: 1.1 A perusal of the Preamble of the A
Uttarakhand Agricultural
Produce Marketing
(Development and Regulation) Act, 2011 shows that the
Act has been enacted to regulate the marketing of
agricultural produce, and for the effective
superintendence and control of the markets in the State B
of Uttarakhand. The preamble cannot control the
enacting part. The preamble read with the provisions of
a statute, however, makes the legisla.tive scheme clear
and can be used to determine the true meaning of the
enacting provision and whether given the other C
provisions of the Act, the enacting provision can be
given effect to without defeating the scheme of the entire
Act. A combined reading of the provisions s. 2(i), 2(ii),
2(vi), 2(xlvi), and section 4 provisions and the preamble D
makes it amply clear that the Act has been enacted with·
a view to regulate the buying and selling of the
agricultural produce within the area notified as Market
Area under Section 4 of the Act. [Para 20, 21 and 22] [323-
G-H; 325-D-E; 327-A-B;]
E
1.2 The primary object of any market legislation is
to ensure that the producer of the agricultural produce
gets a fair return. It is also essentially meant to govern
the "buyer-seller" relationship. An examination of
Section 27(c)(iii) would show that it is againstthe scheme F
of the Act, as it seeks to levy market fee and development
cess even on those units which merely bring agricultural
produce from outside the State into the market area for
carrying out manufacturing, in that there is no sale or
purchase of the product within the market area per se. G
[Para 24} [328-B-D]
1.3 Entry 28 of List II pertains to Markets and Fairs,
while Entry 52 of List I pertains to Industry. Entry 52 of
List I governs the process of manufacture and H
306
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 12 S.C.R.
A production. Therefore, in the instant case, the State
Legislature did not have the competence to enact the
impugned provisions which sought to levy market fee
and development cess even on those agricultural
produce which were not being brought into the market
B for the purpose of sale, but for the purpose of
manufacture or further processing. Since the State
Legislature was not competent to enact the impugned
provision of Section 27(c)(iii) of the Act, the same is liable
to be struck down as the same was enacted by the State
C Legislature without having the legislative competence
to do so. [Paras 25 and 26)(328-F; 330-H; 331-A-C]
1.4 In view of the findings and reasons recorded in
Point No.1 the impugned common judgment and order
D upholding the validity of the amendment to Section
27{c){iii) of the Act is set aside and Section 27(c)(iii) of
the Act is struck down. The consequential action of
isExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.