MADANLAL MANOHARLAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 293 · Decided: 28-11-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

MADANLAL MANOHARLAL AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 28, 1989 
[S. RANGANATHAN, N.D. OJHA AND J.S. VERMA, JJ.) 
Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961: Section 2(a) 
and Sch~du/e Item 41-Sheep hair-Whether covered by wool (Oon)" and 
consequently agricultural produce. 
Words and Phrases: Wool (Oon)-Meaning of. 
These writ petitions were filed by licencesed dealers who 
manufacture woollen fabrics and blankets. They pnrchase sheep hair 
and make them yarn for use in manufacturing the above items. The 
challenge is against the insistence of the State Govt. to treat sheep hair 
as agricultural produce under the Punjab Agricultural Produce 
Markets Act, 1961 and requiring the petitioners to obtain licence and 
pay market fee for transactions in sheep hair. 
It has been contended by the petitioners that even though goat 
hair and camel hair are included in the schedule, sheep hair is not 
included and hence sheep hair is not agricultural produce within the 
meaning of the Act. As regards item No. 41, Wool (Oon) appearing in 
the schedule, it was contended that wool is a manufactured, item of 
sheep hair and not sheep hair itself and the word "wool" according to 
its dictionary meaning is the soft undercoat of various animals including 
sheep. 
Dismissing the writ petitions, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 Item No. 41 of the schedule after the word "wool" 
uses the word "Oon" also within brackets which indicates as to what 
was really intended by the us of the word "wool". Indeed, in the Hindi 
version of the Act item No. 41 of the schedule uses tlieword "Oon" only 
and does not at all use the word "wool". The raw-material out of which 
a textile fibre is made is also described as raw wool. Not only the textile 
fibre but also the soil under-coat of various animals including sheep has 
itself been described as wool. Wool has almost invariably been used in 
the context of sheep hair. [295G; 296A] 
293 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
294 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
1.2 Interpreting item No. 41 Wool (Oon) of the schedule in the 
A light of the above, there seems to be no manner of doubi that the word 
"wool" has been used therein only in the sense in which the word 
"oon" is understood in the trade by the dealer and the consumer in the 
popular sense namely that which people conversant with the word 
'Oon' would attribute to it. This intention is apparent from the 
B circumstance that care has been taken to specifically include goat-hair 
and camel-hair at items 75 and 76 of the schedule. Had wool (oon) been 
used at item No. 41 in the comprehensive sense, it would have automati-
cally included goat-hair and camel-hair and the specific inclusion of 
Goat-hair and Camel-hair at item No. 75 and 76 would have been 
wholly unnecessary. Thus the word 'Wool (Oon)' has obviously been 
used in the popular sense and not in the sense used in scientific and 
C technical terminology which the traders and the consumers are not 
normally supposed to know. [297D-H; 298A] 
Indian Aluminium Cables Ltd. v. Onion of India, [1985] 3 SCC 
284 and Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Krishna Carbon Paper 
D Co., [1989] 1SCC150, relied on. 
E 
Encyclopaedia Britannica Vol. 23, relied on. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1695 of 
1987 Etc. Etc. 
(Under Article; 23 of the Consitution of India). 
Govind Mukhotey, J.D. Jain and B.B. Sinha for the Petitioners. 
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Mahabir Singh, K.B. Rohtagi and Shashank 
F Shekhar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
OJHA, J. The petitioners in these writ petitions are licenced 
dealers having factories and manufacturing units at Panipat in the 
(; State of Haryana and consume sheep hair for manufacturing woollen 
fabrics and blankets. In order to carry on their trade they purchase 
sheep-hair to get yarn manufactured out of it for being used in its turn 
for manufacturing woollen fabrics and blankets. 
The only question urged in these writ petitions is as to whether 
H sheep-hair was an agricultural produce within the meaning of the said 
MADAN LAL v. STATE OF HARYANA (OJHA, J.) 
295 
term as defined under Section 2(a) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce 
Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) so as to attract 
the provisions of the said Act to it. The term "agricultural produce" 
according to its definition contained under Section 2( a) of the Act 
means all produce, whether processed or not, of agricult

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