IMPORTANT POINT
1. The Schedule to the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, is not meant to be filled by inferences and what is meant to contain therein shall be explicit and categoric.
2. By process of coating and applying insecticides, chemicals and poisonous substances to the foodgrain meant to be utilised as seeds, one of its basic character, i.e., its consumption as food by human beings or animals or for extraction for the like purpose, gets irretrievably lost and such processed seeds become a commodity distinct from foodgrains as commonly understood.

Headnote:(i) Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961-Section 2(1)(i) and Schedule as amended-Agricultural Produce-Respondent raises and sells Bajra seeds coated by insecticides, chemicals and other poisonous substances-Demand of appellants in requiring respondents to obtain licences-Whether licence was required for sale of such seeds?-(No)-Such processed seeds become a commodity distinct from foodgrains as commonly understood.
       Held that 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 distinct from the corpus from which it came. (Para 6)
       Further held that foodgrains per se could be used as seeds for being sown 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 utilised as seeds, one of its basic character, i.e., its consumption as food by human beings or animals or for extraction for the like purpose, gets irretrievably lost and such proceeded seeds become a commodity distinct from foodgrains as commonly understood. (Para 7)
       Consequently held : The Schedule is not meant to be filled by inferences. What is meant to contain therein shall be explicit and categoric. Nothing stops the State Government to add suitable words therein to convey that foodgrains, as processed for seeds, would also be agricultural produce within the meaning of the expression "or otherwise" occurring in Section 2(1)(i) of the Act. Since no such exercise has been taken, the State Government cannot be permitted to achieve indirectly which it could have achieved directly, by being specific in that regard. (Para 8)
       (ii) Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961-Section 2(1)(i)-Agricultural Produce-Definition of expression is wide and inclusive-Items mentioned in the schedule-Interpretation of.
       Held, so far as the definition of the expression "agricultural produce" being wide and inclusive goes. But, then the real difficulty comes in interpreting the items mentioned in the schedule as to whether mention of a particular item would ipso facto mean inclusive of all its forms and derivatives achieved by manufacture or processing or by some other method. On reading the schedule as it stood at the relevant time, we come to the view that such a wide interpretation to the items in the schedule can in no event be given. (Para 5)

JUDGMENT

Punchhi, J.-In Civil Appeal Nos. 4064 and 4065 of 1995, the common appellant is the State of Rajasthan and in Civil Appeal Nos. 4066 and 4067 of 1995, its ally, the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Jaipur is the common appellant. The grievance voiced herein by them is common and hence disposal of these appeals by a common order.

2. These appeals are directed against order dated 3.7.1990 passed by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench, allowing two writ petitions preferred by the respective respondents herein. Facts giving rise thereto would require no elaboration, except reference to the barest minimal. The respondents claim themselves to be engaged in the business of purchasing and selling seeds. One of them, M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, in particular, raises and sells Bajra seeds, as claimed. According to the respondents, seeds cannot be termed to be agricultural Produce for the purposes of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 and its Schedule, as amended from time to time by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 40, enabling it to add, amend or cancel any of the items of agricultural produce specified in the Schedule. It is maintained that seeds are a processed item and coated by insecticides, chemicals and other poisonous substances whereby the grains employed lose their use and utility as foodgrains and become unfit for human or animal consumption or for extraction therefrom for such consumption. Since, as claimed, these were outside the ambit of the expression "agricultural produce" as defined in Section 2(1)(i) of the Act; a definition inclusive in nature applying to produce whether of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry or otherwise (emphasis supplied) as specified in the schedule, the demand of the appellants in requiring the respondents to obtain licences for engaging in the trade of purchase and sale of seeds was uncalled for, as well as the threatened prosecutions, in the event of failure. The challenge posed by the respondents before the High Court was answered by the appellants maintaining that foodgrains of all sorts, as mentioned in the Schedule, were seeds per se, the only exception carved out from the items mentioned in the Schedule being those relating to blue tagged certified seeds and white tagged certified foundation seeds; such exceptions having been notified on May 16, 1980 by way of amendment to the Schedule, in exercise of the State Government s power under Section 40 of the Act.

3. The High Court on consideration of the entire matter, took the view that when foodgrains of particular varieties were treated and subjected to chemical process for preservation, those grains become commercially known as "seeds". Reservation was kept however by the High Court to its statement afore-referred that in case a dealer was found dealing in foodgrains under the garb of seeds, the appellants, were not precluded from prosecuting the offender in a Criminal Court. In sum, it was ordered that the appellants stand precluded from requiring the respondents to take licences under the provisions of the Act in relation to their business of dealing in seeds of Bajra or any other foodgrain, as well as restrained from realising or recovering market fees in respect thereof. Sequally, it was ordered that no licence under the Act was required for sale of such seeds. This is how these appeals are before us.

4. Strong reliance was placed by Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants on Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.1 to contend that for the purposes of Section 2(1)(i) and the Schedule of the Act, the expression "agricultural produce" is an inclusive definition which could even include processed items from foodgrains. Thus processed foodgrains on becoming seeds, as alleged by the respondents, would all the same remain foodgrains requiring the respondents to take licence under the Act. Secondly, it was urged that by virtue of Notification dated

Click Here to Read the rest of this document