LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

SANGAM MILK PRODUCER COMPANY LTD. versus THE AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 3 S.C.R. 174 · Decided: 05-03-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUDHANSHU DHULIA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 174 : 2024 INSC 174
Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd. 
v. 
The Agricultural Market Committee & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 6493 of 2014)
05 March 2024
[Sudhanshu Dhulia* and S.V.N. Bhatti, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether “ghee” is a “product of livestock” under the provisions of 
the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets 
Act, 1966 and; whether the Government 1994 notification, which 
inter alia notified “ghee” as one of the products of livestock for the 
purpose of regulation of purchase and sale of “ghee” in all notified 
market areas was published after due compliance of the procedure 
contemplated under the provisions of the Act.
Headnotes
Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets 
Act, 1966 – “Ghee” if a “product of livestock”:
Held: Yes – The argument that “ghee” is not a product of livestock 
is baseless, and bereft of any logic – The contrary argument 
that “ghee” is indeed a product of livestock is logically sound – 
Livestock has been defined u/s.2(v) of the Act, where Cows and 
buffalos are the livestock – Undisputedly, “ghee” is a product of 
milk which is a product of the livestock – Reasoning adopted by 
the Full Bench of the High Court that ‘Ghee’ is derived out of ‘milk’ 
by undergoing a process, yet it still remains a product of livestock, 
for the purposes of the Act and payment of “market fee”, agreed 
with – Further, there was nothing wrong in the 1994 notification 
and the challenge to the notification was rightly turned down by 
the Full Bench of the High Court – The argument of the appellant 
that the procedure given u/s.3 of the Act was not followed, is 
not correct – There is a basic difference between the notification 
which has to be made u/s.3 of the Act and the notification made 
subsequently u/s.4 of the Act – Majority opinion in the Full Bench 
concluded that procedural compliance is only necessary when 
there is a declaration or later a merger/de-merger of a notified area 
and there is no requirement of following any particular procedure 
[2024] 3 S.C.R. 
175
Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd. v.  
The Agricultural Market Committee & Ors.
while issuing a notification u/s.4 (4) of the Act notifying/de-notifying 
any already notified products for the purpose of regulation by any 
respective Agricultural Market Committee – Thus, a prior hearing or 
prior publication of the draft notification is not a requirement u/s.4 
of the Act, since the notification of the year 1994 is a notification 
u/s.4 and not of s.3 of the Act – Therefore, the argument that the 
process u/s.3, was not followed is totally misconceived – No prior 
process was required to be followed as contemplated u/s.3 of the 
Act for working the scheme u/s.4 of the Act – Majority decision of 
the High Court upheld. [Paras 10 ,11 and 14]
Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets 
Act, 1966 – Issue as regards market fee – 1994 notification 
had an effect which made ‘Ghee’ a product that could be 
regulated under provisions of the Act, Market Committees 
were empowered to levy fee on the sale and purchase of 
‘ghee’ as per s.12 of the Act:
Held: Appellants’ argument that the Market Committees did not 
provide any facilities, rejected – Appellants availed the facility 
given by the Market Committee and hence are liable to pay the 
fee – There may also be a question of unjust enrichment here – 
Thus, this market fee should be paid as well – Appellants’ prayer 
that respondent Market Committees should be restrained from 
collecting market fees prior to the date of the High Court Judgment 
not accepted. [Para 13]
Case Law Cited
Kommisetty Nammalwar & Co. Guntur v. Agricultural 
Market Committee, Tenali & Ors., (2009) SCC OnLine 
AP 317 – approved.
Park Leather Industry (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., [2001] 
1 SCR 1035 : (2001) 3 SCC 135; Kishan Lal v. State 
of Rajasthan, [1990] 2 SCR 142 : AIR 1990 SC 2269; 
Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar v. State of U.P., : (1980) 
Supp (1) SCC 27; Smt. Sita Devi (Dead) by LRs. v. 
State of Bihar & Ors., [1994] Suppl. 5 SCR 682 : (1995) 
Supp (1) SCC 670 – referred to.
List of Acts
The Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets 
Act, 1966.
176
[2024] 3 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
List of Keywords
“Ghee”; Livestock; “Product of livestock”; Agricultural Market 
Committee; Unjust enrichment; Market Committees; Market fee.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.6493 of 2014
From

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