LexSMT. SITA DEVI (DEAD) BY LRS. versus STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H SMT. SITA DEVI (DEAD) BY LRS. V. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. NOVEMBER 22, 1994 [K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960-Section 27 and Section 2(/)(a) read with item 3 in Classification 8 of Schedule- Agricultural Produce-Definition-Whether cattle is an agricultural produce-Held, Yes-Market Committee is empowered to levy and collect market fee when cattle is bought or sold in notified market or notified market area. The appellants challenged by filing a writ petition before the High Court the power of Market Committee to levy market fee on buffaloes, bullocks and cows bought or sold in Hat. The High Court held that by operation of Section 2(l)(a) r/w Item 3 in Classification 8 of the Schedule under the head 'Animal Husbandry Products' cattle was an a'gricultural produce for the purpose of levy of the market fee under section 27 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960. This appeal by special leave had been filed against the judgment of the High Court. It was contended by the appellants that cattle being not an agricultural produce, the levy and collection of the market fee on the cattle bought or sold in the notified market was without jurisdiction. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. In Classification 8 of the Schedule, to the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, Item 3 identifies cattle to be an agricultural produce. The definition is an inclusive definition and is of wide import. The legislature itself has specified diverse items in the schedule which is part of the Act which are amenable to levy and 1 collection of the market fee when the specified item is bought or sold in the notified market yard or sub-market yard or yard or in the notified area. In view of the fact that the legislature itself, on identifying the cattle to be an agricultural produce, laid its policy to subject cattle for levy of market fee, it is not open to the Court to scan its wisdom. The policy and the wisdom of the legislature cannot be tested by taking aid 682 . SIT A DEVI v. STATE OF BIHAR 683 of the preamble of the Act particularly when the language of section 2 A (1) (a) is inclusive, unambiguous, specific and explicit. Preamble of the Act is the key to open the mind of the legislature when the language of the statute is ambiguous. Absurdity or irrationality of bringing the enumerated items of agricultural produce within the sweep of the legislature is n·ot a principle of interpretation of the statute and the court cannot strike down the Act on that basis. (684 E to H, 685 A) B The inclusive definition in section 2 (1) (a) under the caption animal husbandry products, cattle has been specified as one of the items of agricultural produce for the purpose of section 27. The market committee, therefore, is well within its power to levy and collect market fee when the cattle was bought or sold in the notified market or notified C market area. (685 B) Ramesh Chandra v. State of U.P., [1980) 3 SCR 104, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1770 of l~~ D From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.83 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1654of1974. S.B. Sanyal and B.B. Singh for the Appellant. H.L. Agarwala and Irshad Ahmed for the Respondent. The following Order of the Court was delivered: E This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1654of1974 dated March F 24, 1983. The only question is whether Market Committee has power to levy market fee on buffaloes, bullocks and cows bought or sold on every Thursday in Sammaspur Hat. The Division Bench held that by operation of section 2 (1) (a) read with Item 3 in Classification 8 of the Schedule under the head 'Animal Husbandry Products' cattle is an agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of the market fee under section 27 of the Bihar G Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (Act XVI of 1960), for short 'the Act.' We find no force in the contention of Sri Sanyal, learned Senior counsel for the appellant that the cattle is not an agricultural produce and the levy and collection of the market fee on the cattle bought or sold in the notified market is without jurisdiction. Section 15(1) of the Act provides that no agricultural produce specified in the notification under sub-section H 684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS. [1994] SUPP. S S.C.R A (I) of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.