TALCHER MUNICIPALITY versus TALCHER REGULATED MKT. COMMITTEE AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 167 · Decided: 28-07-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

TALCHER MUNICIPALITY 
A 
V. 
TALCHER REGULATED MKT. COMMITTEE AND ANR. 
JULY 28, 2004 
[S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956: 
S.4(4) rlw. ss.2(vi) and 2(vii)-Market-Owned by Municipality-
Requisitioned by Agricultural Produce Market Committee-Liability of 
Municipality to transfer-Held, the provision clearly mandates that even C 
the market of a Municipality or a Gram Panchayat falling within the 
market area will have to be transferred if requisitioned therefor-Orissa 
Municipal Act, 1950-ss.295 and 296-Constitution of India-Seventh 
Schedule-List II, Entries 5 and 28. 
Constitution of India: 
Article 136-Plea involving investigation into question of facts-
Held, cannot be allowed to be raised for the first time before Supreme 
Court. 
Maxim 'Generalia specialibus non derogant '-Applicability of 
Words and Phrases : 
Expression "regulation" occurring in Orissa Agricultural Produce 
D 
E 
Markets Act, 1956-Connotation of 
F 
Respondent Market Committee, sent a requisition to appellant 
Municipality to transfer to it, in terms of s.4(4) of the Orissa Agricul-
tural Produce Markets Act 1956 (the Act), a particular market owned 
by the Municipality wherein notified agricultural produces were being G 
bought and sold. Since there was no response from the Municipality, 
the respondent filed a writ petition which was allowed by the High 
Court. Aggrieved, the Municipality filed the present appeal. 
On the question whether the land and building ofa daily market 
owned by a Municipality or a Gram Panchayat where notified agri- H 
167 
168 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A cultural produces are bought and sold is liable to be transferred to the 
Market Committee, if requisition therefor is made : 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Once a market area has been declared, the provisions 
B of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956 will bring within 
its sweep even the markets belonging to a Municipality or a Gram 
Panchayat. Sub-Section ( 4) of Section 4 of the Act clearly mandates 
that even the market of a Municipality or a Gram Panchayat falling 
within the market area will have to be transferred if requisitioned 
C therefor. If in a market where together with agricultural produces 
some non-agricultural produces are also sold, the same by itself would 
not disentitle the respondent to exercise its statutory power contained 
in Section 4(4) of the Act. [172-G-H; 173-E-F) 
1.2. Entry 5 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution 
D oflndia whereunder the Orissa Municipal Act has been enacted would 
be subject to the provisions of Entry 28 of List II as the power to 
establish a market is a separate and distinct one. It is true that the 
primary object of the Act is to protect the producers inter alia from 
being exploited from the middlemen but the State has the requisite 
E legislative competence to establish a market and in that view of the 
matter the Act falls within the ambit of markets and covered by Entry 
28. The Act contains special provisions. It was enacted for better 
regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce. The provision 
of s.4( 4) of the Act operates notwithstanding anything to the contrary 
F contained in any other law for the time being in force. The provisions 
of the Act, therefore, would prevail over the provisions of the Orissa 
Municipal Act. The maxim 'generalia specialibus non derogant' would, 
thus be applicable in this case. [171-E-F; 173-C-D) 
ITC Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committee and Others, 
G (20R21 9 sec 232; E~gi~eering Kamgar Union v. Mis. Electro Steels 
Castings Ltd. & Anr., JT (2004) Supl. 1 SC 78; D.R. Yadav and Another 
v. R.K. Singh and Another, (2003) 7 SCC 110; Indian Handicrafts 
Emporium and Others v. Union of India and Others, [2003) 7 SCC 589 
and MP. Vidyut Karamchari Sangh v. MP. Electricity Board, JT (2004) 
H 3 SC 423, relied on. 
• 
TALCHER MUNICIPALilY v. TALCHER REGULA TED MKT. COMMITTEE [SINHA, l.] 169 
1'.f.C. V.S. Arunachala Nadar Etc. v. The State of Madras & Others, A 
[1959) Supp. 1 SCR 92 and Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar and 
Others, [1999) 9 ·scc 620, referred to. 
1.3. The Power to regulate buying an selling of agricultural 
produce must be interpreted in the context in which the same has been B 
used. Each person whoever is engaged in buying and selling of the 
agricultural produce in the market ~hall be subject to the regulation 
fo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.