LexVIRENDRA KUMAR & ORS. versus KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A VIRENDRA KUMAR & ORS. v. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI & ORS. SEPTEMBER 23, 1987 B [RANGANATH MISRA AND MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.] c D p G U.P. Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964: ss. 2(y}, 5, 9(1) proviso & 17(iii)(b)-Producers of Khandsari sugar-Owners of Khandsari Units-Selling produce in the market area-Whether liable to take out licence and pay market fee-Such producer-Whether a trader. Section 9(1) of the U.P. Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 pro- hibits local body or other person from setting up within the market area any place for the sale-purchase of the specified agricultural produce, except under a licence granted by the Committee concerned. A proviso thereto, however, exempts a producer In respect of agricultural pro- duce produced, reared, caught or processed by him or any person who purchases or stores any agricultural produce for his domestic consump- tion. Clause (b) s. 17(iii) empowers a Committee to levy and collect market fee payable on transactions of sale of specified agricultural produce. Where such produce is sold through a commission agent, sub-cl. (1) of cl. (b) makes him liable to collect the market fee and pay the same to the Committee. The petitioners, who are producers of Khandsari sugar, claimed that as they were only 'producers' in respect of agricultural produce in the market area they were not required to take out any licence or to pay the market fee under the Act, that the expression "for his domestic consumption" in the proviso to s. 9(1) does not refer to a producer of agricultural produce but to a person who purchases or stores any agricultural produce, and that sub-s.(I) of s. 9 would apply only to a producer who was a trader and the petitioners were not 'traders' within the definition of the term under s. 2(y) and also as contemplated by sub-s. (1) ofs. 9. Dismissing the writ petition, HELD: 1. It is not the intention of the Legislature that a 'pro- r- ducer' of an agricultural produce within the Market Area should be exempted from taking out any licence even though he sells his produce H in the Market Area. [311G-HI 308 ... - - . -I VIRENDRA v. KRISH! UTPADAN SAMIT! 309 2. Sub-section (1) of s. 9 of the U.P. Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, A 1964 will not apply to the two categories of persons mentioned in the proviso thereto, namely, (1) a producer who produces, r~ars, catches or processes agricultural produce for his domestic consumption, and (2) any person who purchases or stores any agricultural produce for his domestic coiisUlllption. If, however, the producer produces, rears, catches or processes agricultural produces not for his domestic con- B sUmption but for the sale thereof in the Market Area such a producer will not come within the purview of the proviso and he will have to take out a licence under s. 9(1). 1312B-C; Fl Since the petitioners in the instant case are producing Khandsari for sale in the Market Area they will have to take out a licence under sub-s. (1) of s. 9. They are thus also liable to pay market fee to the C Committee on their transactions ofsale, under s. 17(iii)(b). [313DI 3. The expression "for bis domestic consumption" in the proviso to s. 9(1) refers to a producer of agricultural produce. The proviso should be interpreted in a manner which would be in conformity with D the intention of the legislature and also the object of the Act, i.e., the regulation of sale and purchase of agricultural produce and estab- lishment, superintendence and control of market therefor. If the proviso is interpreted to mean that the producer of agricultural produce is exempt from taking out a licence under s. 9(1), even though he produces, rears, catches or processes not for his domestic consump- tion but for selling thelll in the Market Area, it would defeat the very E object of the Act. l312C-DI 4. The petitioners by producing Khandsari sugar and selling it within the market area are also 'traders' within the meaning of s. 2(y) and also as contemplated by sub-s. (1) ofs. 9. [313BI Ramesh Chandra v. State of U.P., [1980] 3 SCR 104, referred to. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 766 of 1987. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). Soli J. Sorabjee and Pramod Swarup for the Petitioners. F G ~ Dr. Y.S. Chitale:Mrs. S. Dikshit and Pradeep Mishra for the Res- pondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H A B c D E F G H 310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] 1 S.C.R. DUTT, J. In
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.