Back
2002(2) Supreme 330
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Karnataka High Court)
V.N. Khare and Ashok Bhan, JJ.
H.S. Jayanna & Bros. & Ors. -Appellants
versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 1859-64 of 2002
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 5190-95 of 1999)
With
W.P. (C) Nos. 196, 194 and 437 of 1999
Decided on 6-3-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : S.S. Javali and Rakesh Dwivedi, Senior Advocates, E.C. Vidya Sagar, B.K. Choudhary, B.R. Satenahalli, B.G. Sridharan, G.V. Chandrasekhar, Advocate for P.P. Singh, N. Ganpathy, Sanjay R. Hegde and Satya Mitra, Advocates.
Held : We have no hesitation in concluding that the entire field of regulating the purchase and sale of paddy or the rice produced out of the paddy is not covered under the Control Order. The provisions of the Marketing Act do not trench up the field covered by the Control Order. There is no inconsistency between the Control Order and the Marketing Act. They do not cover the same field and therefore the question of any inconsistency, repugnancy or the Marketing Act being ineffectual in terms of Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act in view of the Control Order issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act would not arise. The Control Order deals with the compulsory acquisition of 1/3 of rice of each variety produced by a miller at a purchase price fixed by the Government. It requires the miller to supply to the Government or its purchase agent and deliver the procured rice at a notified place. It does not deal with the sale and purchase of the remaining 2/3rd rice except that the miller is not permitted to remove the stock of rice from the mill premises without delivery of rice to the Government or its purchase agent and without obtaining a release certificate required to be taken under Clause 8 of the said order. It does not deal with the marketing or the facilities to be provided to the grower, seller and purchaser of paddy in the market area or to the seller or purchaser of the rice. The Control Order is thus limited in operation. The Marketing Act provides for the regulation of marketing of agricultural produce (which the rice is) and the establishment and administration of markets for agricultural produce and matters connected therewith in the State of Karnataka. The Marketing Act deals with the entire gamut of marketing of agricultural produce starting from the establishment of the market committees, markets, declaration of market area, market yard, market sub yard, regulation of marketing of specified agricultural produce therein and for obtaining a licence under the Act. The process of appointment/ electing the market committees, the powers and duties of the market committee [Section 63(1)], the facilities to be provided by the market committee (Section 63(2) and the levy of market fee (Section 65). The Marketing Act does not deal with any of the provisions made in the Control Order. The Control Order and the Marketing Act do deal with the same subject but do not cover the same field. There is no conflict between them. They do not occupy the same field. The Marketing Act deals with a cognate matter on the same subject but not the field which is already occupied by the Control Order. Under the circumstances the reliance placed by the counsel for the appellants on Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. [1999(9) SCC 620] is totally misplaced, on the contrary on the facts of the present case, the said judgment supports the case of the respondents. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any merit in these appeals and writ petitions consequently the same are dismissed with no orders as to costs. (Paras 17 & 18)
JUDGMENT
Bhan, J.-Leave granted in the special leave petitions.
2. Rice millers and commission agents in the State of Karnataka having licences under the provisions of the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, 1958 filed writ petitions challenging the validity of levy of market fee on rice by the Marketing Committees constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (for short the Marketing Act ).
3. Writ petitions were filed, inter alia, on the grounds as to whether the sale of rice by the rice millers to the State Government or its agents by virtue of the Karnataka Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 (for short the Control Order ) is a sale for the purpose of Section 65 of the Marketing Act; when once paddy is subjected to levy of market fee, whether on sale of rice, market fee could be levied; whether the rice which is a processing commodity from a paddy could be subjected to market fee; and as to whether the provisions of the Marketing Act were repugnant to the Control Order framed under the Essential Commodities Act. The single Judge allowed the writ petitions, aggrieved against which the State of Karnataka filed writ appeals. Few writ petitions which were filed after the admission of the writ appeals were ordered to be clubbed with the writ appeals. The writ appeals and the writ petitions were thereafter taken up together and disposed of by passing a common order. Before the Division Bench counsel for the parties addressed arguments on the following points:
(1) Whether sale of rice by the Rice Millers to the State Government or its agent by virtue of procurement order is a sale for the purpose of Section 65(2) of the Marketing Act.
(2) When once paddy is subjected to levy of market fee, whether on sale of rice, market fee can be levied or not.
(3) Whether the rice which is a processing commodity from a paddy will be subjected to market fee or not.
(4) Whether the provisions of the Marketing Act are repugnant to the control order and if so what is its effect.
4. The Division Bench accepted the appeals and dismissed the writ petitions. All the points raised in the appeals were decided against the rice millers and the commission agents. The first point was decided against the dealers relying upon the decision of this Court in Food Corporation of India vs. State of Kerala 1997(3) SCC 410, wherein it has been held that sale of rice by the rice millers to the State Government or its agents by virtue of procurement order is a sale. On the second point it was held that paddy and rice being two different commodities the market fee could be levied on paddy as well as rice. On the similar grounds question number 3 was decided against the dealers. On question number 4 the High Court opined that the provisions of the Marketing Act were not repugnant to the control order. For this reliance was placed on certain decisions of the same High Court.
5. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench the present appeals have been filed. Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 196, 194 & 437 of 1999, which were filed in this Court, were ordered to be listed with these appeals. The point being the same, these writ petitions are taken up and disposed of with the appeals. The facts are being referred from the appeals.
6. Counsel for the appellants addressed arguments on question number 4 only. The other points were given up and no arguments were addressed.
7. Relying upon the decision of this Court in Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. 1999(9) SCC 620, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that since under the Control Order the entire field of marketing of rice was covered, therefore, the Marketing Act could not be made applicable to the sale of rice. A parallel was sought to be raised with the transactions concerning to sugarcane, sugar and molasses in Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. (supra) to contend that the Marketin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
