SASA MUSA SUGAR WORKS ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 149 · Decided: 08-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SASA MUSA SUGAR WORKS ETC. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
JULY 8, 1996 
[G. N. RAY AND B.L. HANSARIA, .JJ.] 
Bihar Afjlitllltural Produce Markets Act, 1960-Sections 4A and 48 
inse11ed by (Amendment) Act, 1993, Sec. 33M as inserted by (Amendment) 
Act, 1992-Legality of-Notification dated 31-8-1992 issued u/s 4 of the 
Act-Power of inclusion or deletion of an afjlicultural produce-Requirement 
of followi11g the procedure under Sections 3 & 4 of the Act-Section 4A does 
not suffer from encroachmellt of judicial power of the State-Sections 3 & 4 
stand modified on account of Section 39 r/w S 4A of the Act-Deletion of an 
itent and subsequent inclusion of the sanie u/s 39 to be 111ade in accordance 
with Section 39 r/w S 4A-Vires of Ss. 4A & 4B, 33M upheld. 
On 6-8-1960 when the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 
came into force, sugar was one of the scheduled items in respect of which 
A 
B 
c 
D 
the provisions of the Act were made applicable. On 22-3-1976, all sugar 
mills were exempted from the provisions of Section 15 of the Act. By 
notification dated 2-5- 1977, sugar and some other items were deleted from E 
the schedule in exercise of the power u/s 39 of the Act. On 21-5-1977, by 
another Notification, issued in exercise of power u/s 39 of the Act, the 
previous Notification dated 2-5-1977 was cancelled. Several sugar mills 
challenged this Notification dated 21-5-1977 by filing Writ Petitions alleg-
ing as to whether or not the cancellation of the earlier Notification by the F 
subsequent notification dated 21-5-1977 had the effect of restoring the 
situations prevailing prior to 2-5-1977. The High Court held that Notifica-
tion dated 21-5-1977, even though cancelled the earlier Notification dated 
2-5-1977, did not tantamount to an automatic revival of sugar being an 
item in the Schedule; that for including sugar as an item in the Schedule G 
'Jf the Markets Act, positive action of issuing separate notification adding 
sugar in the Schedule ~'as necessary and even if it was assumed that the 
effect of notification dated 21.5.1977 was to add sugar in the Schedule of 
the Act, such inclusion did not authorise imposition of market fee u/s 27 
of the Act because it was necessary to comply with the requiren1ents u/Ss 
3 and 4 of the Act before including any item in the Schedule of the Act. H 
149 
• 
150 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A TI1e Bihar State Agricultural Marke1ting Board filed Special Leave Petition 
against the Judgment of the High Court. On 23-5-1992, Memo No. 3027 
Dated 12-'-1992 issued u/S 39 of the Markets Act adding sugar to the 
Schedule under the Markets Act, was published in the Bihar Extraordi-
nary Gazette. By the Bihar Agricul(ural Produce Markets (Amendment) 
B Act, 1993, Sections 4A and 4B were inserted in the Markets Act. The 
market committees issued notices to the Sugar Mills in view of the amend-
ment of the Act incorporating Sections 4A and 4B. Writ Petitions were filed 
by several sugar mills challenging the valiclity of Sections 4A and 4B of the 
Act. The High Court, partly allowing the petition, held that the Validat-
e ing/Amending Act of 1993, introduding Sections 4A and 48 into the 
Markets Act after Section 4, could not have the effect of making the Act 
applicable to sugar under Notification dated 21-5-1977 in view of the fact 
that Sections 3 and 4 remained integral and vital parts of the Markets Act 
and compliance of Sections 3 and 4 was essential; that the Validat-
ing/Amending Act had merely the effect of making Sections 3 and 4 of the 
D Act not applicable to action taken under Section 39 of the Act, but having 
regard to the continuance of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, other provisions 
of the Act cannot be made applicable merely because of the re-introduction 
of sugar into the Schedule as to make !he Act applicable to the items added 
by Notification dated May 21, 1977, there must have been a fresh notifica-
E lion u/Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act; a notification u/S 3 (1) is not a mere 
notification introducing agricultural Produce under the Schedule of the 
Act but the said notification is also concerned with prescribing the area 
within which the agricultural produce will have to be sold and purchased 
and notification u/s 4 can be brought into existence only after considering 
F the objections presented under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, pursuant to 
the notification issued under Section 3 (1) of the Act. The introduction of 
a comm

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