2002(1) Supreme 258
Supreme Court of India
(From Patna High Court)
Chief Justice of India and G.B. Pattanaik, Y.K. Sabharwal, Mrs. Ruma Pal and Brijesh Kumar, JJ.
ITC Ltd. —Appellant
versus
The Agricultural Produce Market Committee & Ors. —Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6453 of 2001
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 540/87, 541/87, 3872/90, 3024/88, 3023/88, 1535/88, 1194/88, 1394/88, 1536/88, 1980/88, 1981/88, 3715/88, 2464/88, 6619/97, 2088-89/99,
C.A. Nos. 671, 673-675 of 2002
(@ S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 892/85, 27568-27570/95)
And
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8614/1982
Decided on 24-1-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : R.N. Trivedi, Additional Solicitor General, Shanti Bhushan, S. Ganesh, Ms. Shobha Dikshit, L. Nageswara Rao, G.L. Sanghi, S.K. Gambhir, A.K. Ganguli, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, S.B. Sanyal, Rakesh Dwivedi, P.P. Malhotra, V.A. Bobde, Senior Advocates, Nillay Dutta, Advocate General, for Assam, Beeran, Additional Advocate General for Kerala, Pallav Shishodia, Sanjay R. Pathak, Buddy A. Ranganadhan, Pradeep Misra, Ms. Indu Misra, R.P. Gupta, Ms. Rashmi Jain, Shushendra Chauhan, S.K. Agnihotri, Anil K. Pandey, Sakesh Kumar, Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Rohit K. Singh, H.K. Puri, Awanish Sinha, S.K. Puri, Rajesh Srivastava, Ujjawal Banerjee, Ms. Anindita Gupta, Vikas Singh, Yunus Malik, Sunil Roy, A. Subba Rao, S.B. Upadhyay, G. Umapathy, Krishnamurthi Swami, P.K. Bansal, Rajan Narain, Ashok Mathu, Ms. Krishna Sarma, Ms. Asha G. Nair, V.K. Sidharthan, Mahabir Singh, S.P. Singh Chauhan, Saket Singh, Ms. Niranjana Singh, B.B. Singh, Ms. Indu Sharma, Ms. Rachna Srivastava, Manoj Prasad, Pramod Swarup, Praveen Swarup, Ms. Pareena Swarup, L.K. Pandey, S.V. Deshpande, Ms. Anuradha Rastogi, Pramit Saxena, Manish Singhvi, Ramesh Singh, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Divya Roy, Vivek Gambhir, S.G. Sridharan, G.C. Chandrashekhar, P.P. Singh, Sanjay R. Hegde, Satya Mitra, Prakash Shrivastava, A. Mariarputham, Ms. Aruna Mathur, Anurag D. Mathur, T. Raja, Hemant Sharma, S.N. Terdol, Kh. Nobin Singh, Ms. A. Subhashini, Ramesh Babu M.R., Anil Shrivastava, T.V. Ratnam, K. Subba Rao, S.K. Dwivedi, Advocates.
(ii) Whether the State Legislatures are competent to exact legislation providing for the levy and collection of market fee on the sale of tobacco in a market area? (Yes)—Effect—Consequently the Market Acts enacted by the states are valid (see paras 121, 188 and judgment of Mrs. Ruma Pal).
(iii) Whether the State Legislations and the Tobacco Board Act, 1975, to the extent that they relate to sale of tobacco in market areas, can co-exist? (No)—Effect—The former prevails over the other (per majority of Sabharwal, Ruma Pal and Brijesh Kumar JJ.) (Minority of C.J.I. and G.B. Pattanaik contra).
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points summarized:
The validity of state legislation imposing market fees on the sale of tobacco within a market area is upheld, and such laws are deemed constitutional (!) (!) .
The central legislation, specifically the Tobacco Board Act, is also considered valid and within the legislative competence of Parliament, especially when it declares the tobacco industry to be under its control in the public interest (!) (!) .
The scope and interpretation of the term "industry" in the context of legislative entries are broad, encompassing manufacturing, production, and related activities, but excluding raw materials and activities solely prior to manufacturing or post-production distribution, unless explicitly declared as controlled industries by Parliament (!) (!) .
The expression "industry" in Entry 52 of List I should be given a wide, liberal interpretation, covering the entire industrial process including growing, curing, and marketing of tobacco, provided the legislation is enacted under the proper constitutional provisions and declarations (!) (!) .
The legislative powers of the State and the Union are distinct but can overlap in certain areas; however, when the central legislation declares control over an industry, it generally occupies the entire field, leaving no room for state laws that conflict or cover the same ground (!) (!) .
When two laws are in conflict, the central law prevails if it is within its constitutional competence and the scope of the legislation is clearly defined. If laws operate in different fields or are mutually exclusive, both can often coexist (!) (!) .
The concept of "occupation of the field" by legislation is relevant primarily in cases involving concurrent or overlapping entries, but in cases where the central law is enacted under a specific declaration, it generally takes precedence and the state law is rendered invalid to the extent of conflict (!) (!) .
The interpretation of legislative entries should be broad and liberal, ensuring that laws are not rendered invalid due to overly narrow or restrictive readings, and efforts should be made to harmonize conflicting laws where possible (!) (!) .
Specific provisions within legislation, such as those related to setting up auction platforms or levying fees, are considered valid if they are within the scope of the declared industry and do not encroach upon the legislative field of the states without proper constitutional basis (!) (!) .
The legislative competence of the Parliament to enact laws concerning the entire process of an industry, including raw materials, depends on whether the activity is explicitly declared as part of the industry under the constitutional provisions. Without such declaration, state laws concerning raw materials and activities prior to manufacturing generally remain valid (!) (!) .
The constitutional scheme emphasizes the importance of federalism, and laws should be interpreted in a manner that preserves the powers of both Parliament and the states, avoiding broad interpretations that would render state legislations redundant or invalid (!) (!) .
When conflicts arise between central and state laws, the law enacted by Parliament under its constitutional powers typically prevails, especially when it has occupied the entire legislative field through a proper declaration (!) (!) .
The use of specific clauses, such as Section 31 of a particular Act, indicates the legislative intent that the central law operates in addition to, and not in derogation of, existing state laws, allowing for coexistence unless explicitly overridden (!) (!) .
The interpretation of legislative entries must be consistent with the constitutional structure, respecting the division of powers and the fundamental features of federalism, while also giving effect to the broad and liberal approach to constitutional language (!) (!) .
The validity of laws related to trade, commerce, and industry depends on whether they fall within the scope of the specific entries in the legislative lists, and whether they are enacted under proper constitutional declarations and provisions (!) (!) .
These points collectively reflect the principles guiding the interpretation and validity of central and state legislation concerning industries, especially in the context of declarations under specific constitutional entries.
Judgment
Pattanaik, J.—Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
2. I.T.C. Limited filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Patna High Court against an order of assessment passed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Monghyr, demanding a sum of Rs. 35,87,072/-, inter alia on the ground that the purchase of unprocessed tobacco leaves from the growers, being the subject matter of the levy, the Market Committee has no power to levy and collect fee. The stand taken before the High Court was that tobacco leaves neither having been bought or sold within the market area and the power to levy and collect market fee under Section 27 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, being on the Agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area, the Market Committee was not entitled to levy market fee. The Division Bench however without entering into the aforesaid controversy, came to the conclusion that no clear notice appears to have been given to the company to produce the records for the purpose of satisfying the Market Committee that the tobacco leaves in question were either not processed or exported from the market area and, therefore, the company must be given a fresh opportunity of adducing all the relevant documents before the Market Committee to escape the presumption arising out of proviso to Section 27 of the Act. The High Court having remitted the matter to the Market Committee for passing a fresh assessment order, the company has approached this Court, which is the subject matter in Civil Appeal No. 6453 of 2001 arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 12374/84. When the Special Leave Petition was listed before a Bench of this Court in February, 1987, the judgment of this Court in I.T.C. Ltd. etc. vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 1985 Supp. (1) S.C.R. 145 had been placed. The Bench tentatively being of the view that the decision of this Court requires reconsideration directed that the matter be placed before a Constitution Bench of five Judges and that is how the matter has been placed before the Constitution Bench. Subsequent to the Bihar case, similar cases arising out of judgment of other High Courts on being assailed before this Court, those cases also have been tagged on to this case. When this batch of cases had been earlier listed before a Constitution Bench and arguments had been advanced on behalf of company, the Court felt that it would be appropriate to issue notice to the Attorney General and the Advocate Generals of all the States, as most of the States have their State Act called the Agricultural Produce Market Act and pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10th of April, 2001, notices were issued to Advocate Generals of all the States as well as to the Ld. Attorney General, whereafter this case has been heard by this Bench.
3. Different State Legislatures have enacted Agricultural Produce and Markets Act for regulating sale and purchase of the agricultural produce within the market area and for levy and collection of market-fee. Parliament having declared that it is expedient in the public interest that Union should take under its control the tobacco industry, enacted the Tobacco Board Act, 1975 which is an Act to provide for the development of tobacco industry under the control of the Union Government. Under the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, the State Government having notified ‘tobacco’ as an agricultural produce, the purchase and sale of tobacco is to be regulated under the provisions of the State Act and the Market Committee has the right to levy and collect market-fee on such sale and purchase of the notified agricultural produce viz. the tobacco. In a case arising from the State of Karnataka, this Court by a majority of 2:1, came to hold that the tobacco industry having been taken over by the Central Government under Entry 52 of List I and having passed the Tobacco Board Act, the State Legislature ceases to have any jurisdiction to leg
Baij Nath Kedia v. State of Bihar & Ors.
State Bank of India v. Yasangi Venkateswar Rao
Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills v. State of U.P.
India Cement Ltd. v. State of Tamil Nadu
Orissa Cement Ltd. v. State of Orissa & Ors.
Indian Aluminium Company & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors
Synthetics & Chemicals Ltd. & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
Express Hotels Private Ltd. v. State of Gujarat & Anr.
Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P., 1980(4) SCC 136
M/s. Hoechst Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. State of Bihar, 1983(4) SCC 45
Fatechand Himmatlal & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra
Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. v. State of Bihar
State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla
State of Rajasthan v. G. Chawla
Accountant and Secretarial Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Fatechand v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 1825
Calcutta Gas Company (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of West Bengal
Amritsar Municipality v. State of Punjab, AIR 1969 SC 1100
Hingir Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa
I.T.C. Ltd. etc. v. State of Karnataka
State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch and Co.
Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia & Ors. etc. v. Union of India & Ors.
Chaturbhai M. Patel v. Union of India
Governor-General in Council v. Province of Madras, AIR 1945 PC 98
Navinchandra Mafatlal v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City
Zaverbhai Amaidas v. The State of Bombay
Hingir-Rampur Coal Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. The State of Orissa & Ors.
State of Orissa v. M.A. Tulloch & Co.
M PV Sundaranier & Co. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1958) SCR 1422
A.S. Krishna v. State of Madras
Chaturbhai M.P. Patel v. Union of India & Ors., 1960(2) SCR 362
Waverly Jute Mills Co. Ltd. v. Raymon & Co. (India) Private Ltd.
M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India
B. Viswanathaiah & Co. v. State of Karnataka
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.