THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN versus RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURE INPUT DEALERS ASSOCIATION

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 265 · Decided: 09-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE STATE OF RAIASTHAN 
v. 
RAIASTHAN AGRICULTURE INPUT DEALERS ASSOCIATION 
JULY 9, 1996 
[M.M. PUNCHHJ AND SU.TATA V. MANOHAR, J.T.] 
Rajasthan Ab"ic1tlt11ral Produce Mmkets Act, 1961: Section 2( l)(i) and 
Schedule. 
Ag1iculture Produce--Bajra seeds-Coated with insecticides, chen1icals 
and not jJoisonous substances for being sown and achieving gennina-
tion-Held : not covered by the itenz 'Bajra' in the Schedule since sztch 
processed Bajra seeds becan1e unfit for Jnanan consun1ption and ceased to 
be foodgrains--Hence, not 
11agricultural produce'
1
• 
'Afj!icultural Produce-Definition-Held : inclusive and wide-But in 
inte1preting the iten1s nientioned in the schedule, 111ention of a pllrlicular itenz 
would not ipso facto mean inclusion of all its forms and deriva-
tii1es-Schedule was not nieant to be filled by inferences-What was contained 
therein should be explicit and catego1ic--Fro1n the schen1e of seJialising itenis 
in schedule intention could be gathered-!11te1pretation of Statutes. 
The respondents were engaged in the business of purchasing and 
selling seeds. One of them in particular raised and sold Bajra seeds. The 
appellants demanded of the respondents to obtain licences for engaging in 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
the trade of purchase and sale of seeds as specified in the Schedule to the F 
Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961. The respondents filed 
a \ITit petition in the High Court challenging the aforesaid demand of the 
appellants, which was allowed. Being aggrieved the appellants preferred 
the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the expression 
"agricultural produce" was an inclusive definition which could even include 
processed items from foodgrains requiring the respondents to take licence 
under the Act; and that by virtue of Notification dated 16th May, 1980, 
certified seeds and foundation seeds of a description alone were excluded 
G 
from the purview of the Schedule and no other seed. 
H 
265 
266 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the seeds were a 
processed item and coated by insecticides, chemicals and other poisonous 
substances whereby the gains employed lost their use and utility as 
foodgrains and became unfit for human or animal consumption or for 
extraction therefrom for such consumption; that the seeds could not be 
B termed to be "agricultural produce" as defined in Section 2 (1) (i) of the Act; 
and that the demand of the appellants in requiring the respondents to 
c 
obtain licences for engaging in the trade of purchase and sale of seeds was 
uncalled for. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The definition of the expression "agricultural produce" 
in Section 2(1) (i) of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 
is wide and inclusive. But that does not mean that in interpreting the items 
mentioned in the schedule, mention of a particular item would ipso facto 
mean inclusion of all its forms and derivatives achieved by manufacture 
D or processing. or by some other method. [269-C) 
1.2. The schedule applicable rnn the relevant dates discloses that item 
2 is titled as "Dhanya" (foodgrains). The scheme of serialising processed 
items in this manner is reflective of a positive application of mind that not 
E only the original foodgrains which are foodgrains per se included, but their 
products and derivatives too are mentioned specifically as 'agricultural 
produce" due to its wide definition. Wherever any produce of agriculture, 
horticulture or animal husbandry or otherwise is sought to be inducted in 
the Schedule, other than what it is in the natural form, it is given a name 
and identity ciiStinct from the corpus from which it came. Wherever seeds 
F were intended to be separately serialized, like seeds of musk melon and 
water melon, they distinctly fonnd mentioned in contrast to the fruits, from 
which they came but as distinct products. [269-F-G, 270-A-B) 
1.3. Though foodgrains per se could be used as seeds for being sown 
G and achieving germination, but in that form they retain the dual utility of 
being foodgrains as well as seeds. By process of coating and applying 
insecticides, other chemicals and poisonous substances to the foodgrain 
meant to be utUised as seeds, one of its basic character, i.e., its consump-
tion as food by human beings or animals or for extraction for the like 
purpose, gets irretrievably lost and such processed seed

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