LexSEEDSMAN ASSOCIATION, HYDERABAD AND ORS. versus PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., A.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SEEDSMAN ASSOCIATION, HYDERABAD AND ORS. v. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVT., A.P. AND ORS. FEBRUARY I 0, 2004 B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] Agricultural Laws: C Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and livestock) Markets Act, 1996-Section 7-Market Fee-Levy of-Association of members registered under Societies Act-Organizing seed production, processing and marketing seeds under Seeds Act and Control Order-Levy of market fee under 1996 Act-Writ Petition by Association pleading that since seeds not meant for direct human consumption, levy of market fee not permissible-Disposal of- D On appeal, held: Writ Petition being very vague in nature and details regarding activities of members, commodity, manner of its production and also how its ·- -- consumption as food by human beings or animals irretrievably lost and that .. • such commodity distinctfromfoodgrains, not given, the Association cannot be granted any relief-However it is entitled to seek appropriate relief in fresh E proceedings-Seeds Act, 1966-Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. Appellant-Association of members registered under the Societies Act, are organizing seed production, processing and marketing seeds under the Seeds Act, t 966 and Seeds (Control) Order, t 983. They sow Breeder/ Foundation seeds and are responsible to procure seeds produced according F to the procedure laid down, which are not meant for human consumption but for exclusive purpose of sowing only. Respondents levied market fee under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agrieultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. Appellants filed writ petition challenging the levy. They contended that since seeds are not meant for direct human G consumption, levy of market fee is not permissible. High Court holding that all items are exigible to the levy of market fee except two items, disposed of the writ petitions with certain directions. Hence the present appeals. Appellants contended that the statutory provisions of Seeds Act, 1966 H and Seeds (Control) Order deal with every aspect of sale and purchase of 272 SEEDSMANASSON. HYDERABAD 1•. PRINCIPAL SECY. TOGOVT.,A.P. 273 seeds, therefore, the very same activity cannot come within the purview A of Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. Respondents contended that the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 regulates the actual trade in seeds so that the producer gets the proper price and the grower may get B the proper quality of seed having regard to the price paid by him whereas the purpose and object of Seeds Act, 1966 and Seeds (Control) Order, 1983 is entirely different, namely, to maintain the quality of seeds meant for sale. Dismissing the appeals, the Court c HELD: In the instant case, no details regarding the members of the Association and the activity being carried on by the members have been given. The writ petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof is silent about the nature and variety of the seeds allegedly being produced by them D and the method or process being adopted in production of seeds. Also there is no averment that the seeds in which the members are dealing have been certified by the Seeds Certification Agency of the State Government. The averment in the affidavit that "it is from the date of sowing, the Breeder/ Foundation seeds, the petitioner's responsibility is to procure the seeds produced according to the procedure laid down in the Indian Minimum E Seed Certification Standards, 1988" is not only vague but also shows that the members themselves do not produce seeds but they in fact procure seeds produced by someone else. Who is the producer of seeds and what steps have been taken by such producer to ensure the quality of the seeds is not disclosed. Similarly, there is no clear averment that on account of F application of insecticides or chemicals and poisonous substances, the basic character of the article, namely, its consumption as food by human beings or animals is irretrievably lost and that such commodity is distinct from foodgrains. Therefore it is not possible to give any relief to the appellants. However, this ordi:r will not preclude the members of the appellant- Association or other appellants from seeking appropriate relief in fresh G proceedings, which may be instituted in accordance with law. 1279-E-H; 280-CI State of Rajasthan v. Rajas than Agricultural Input Deale
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.