SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(SC) 123

2004(1) Supreme 740
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & G.P. Mathur, JJ.
I.T.C. Ltd. -Appellant
versus
The Person Incharge Agricultural Market Committee, Kakinada and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5321 of 1997
With
C.A. Nos. 5204/97 and 4803 of 1999
Decided on 30-1-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : S. Ganesh, Sr. Advocate, C.R. Sridharan, Rajan Narain, Shirin Khajuria, Ms. Puja Sharma, Rajib Sankar Roy, Abhijit Sengupta, K. Ram Kumar, B. Sridhar, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
Prawn is included in the definition of fish as given in the Maritime Zones of India Act and has all the essential attributes of an animal, it is, therefore, is a livestock within the meaning of A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, to justify levy of market fee.

Headnote:Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966-Sections 2(v), 3(1), 3(3) and 4(4)-Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act, 1981-Notifications for regulating purchase and sale of different kinds of agricultural produce, live stock and products of Live Stock-Appellant, a public limited company, engaged in business of processing and exporting of marine products-Appellant purchases dead prawns from various locations and after getting them processed, exports the same to various countries-Appellant had obtained licenses from respondents under the Act for carrying on its business activities-Levy of market fee-Challenged-Whether activities carried by appellant were covered by provisions of the Act-(Yes)-Whether dead and dried prawns purchased by appellant could be considered to be livestock within the meaning of Section 2(v) of the Act-(Yes).

       Held : Section 3 of the Act confers power upon the Government to issue notification declaring their intention of regulating the purchase and sale of such agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock in such area as may be specified in such notification. The Andhra Pradesh Government has issued notification, whereunder live prawns including prawns with or without life in any form has been notified. The commodity which the appellant purchases namely dead prawns, which after processing is exported to various countries are clearly included in the notification issued by the State Government. In view of Section 12 of the Act which is the charging section and empowers the Market Committee to levy fee on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the notified market area, the appellant is liable to pay market fee. (Para 4)

       Normally, in common parlance animal is understood as a quardruped creature but fish is also an animal but of different kind. Prawn is included in the definition of fish as given in the Maritime Zones of India (Regulation of Fishing by Foreign Vessels) Act and has all the essential attributes of an animal, viz., life, sensation and voluntary motion. It is therefore not possible to accept the contention that prawn is not a livestock. The State Government is thus fully competent to issue a notification regarding prawns under Section 3 of the Act. (Para 6)

       

JUDGMENT

G.P. Mathur, J.-The controversy raised in all these appeals is similar and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment. We will state the facts of Civil Appeal No. 13217 of 1997. The appellant is a public limited company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Calcutta. It is engaged in the business of processing and exporting of marine products and for that purpose it has established a branch office at Kakinada in the State of Andhra Pradesh, from where it carries on the business activities in respect of prawns. The appellant purchases dead prawns from various locations like Bhimili, Vizag, Vakapadu, Bhimavaram, Kakinada, Narsapur, Kodur, Nagayalanka, Machilipatnam, Repalla, Amalapuram in the State of Andhra Pradesh and after getting them processed, exports the same to various countries. The appellant had obtained licenses from the respondents under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) for carrying on its business activity in the aforesaid places. A demand notice dated 26th September, 1995 was served upon the appellant demanding payment of market fee wherein it was mentioned that if the market fee was not paid, interest at the rate of 12 per cent annum shall be charged, apart from prosecution being launched for violation of Sections 12(1) and 12(a) and (3) of the Act, which entails punishment upto one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. The appellant challenged the notice demanding market fee by filing writ petition in the Andhra Pradesh High Court which dismissed the same by the order dated 18.2.1997 relying upon an earlier detailed judgment dated 17.4.1996 of a Division Bench of the same Court given in a batch of writ petitions and writ appeals.

2. Shri S. Ganesh, learned senior counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the activities carried on by the appellant were not covered by the provisions of the Act inasmuch as dead and dried prawns purchased by the appellant could not be considered to be livestock within the meaning of Section 2(v) of the Act. The word livestock meant and implied the continued existence of life and that once life ceased, the thing could no longer be considered to be livestock and consequently could not, in law, be notified as livestock under Section 2(v) of the Act. At any rate, the Government could declare animals alone as livestock for the purpose of the Act and as live or dead or dried prawns were not animals within the meaning of Section 2(v) of the Act, it is urged, they could not be notified as livestock under the aforesaid provision. Learned counsel has submitted that the inclusion of prawns in the Schedule to the Act as livestock was illegal and ultra vires and, therefore, no market fee could be demanded from the appellant.

3. In order to examine the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and the notification issued thereunder. As the Preamble shows, the Act has been enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the regulation of purchase and sale of agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock and the establishment of markets in connection therewith. Section 2 of the Act gives the definitions and sub-sections (v), (ix), (x) and (xv) thereof read as under:

(v) Livestock means cows, buffaloes, bullocks, bulls, goats and sheep, and includes poultry, fish and such other animals as may be declared by the Government by notification to be livestock for the purposes of this Act;

(ix) notification means a notification published in the Andhra Pradesh Gazette, and the word notified shall be construed accordingly;

(x) notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock means agricultural produce, livestock or products of































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top