2004(2) Supreme 88
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
S. Rajendra Babu & G.P. Mathur, JJ.
Seedsman Association, Hyderabad and Ors. -Appellants
versus
Principal Secretary to Govt., A.P. and Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 904 of 2004
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20787 of 2000)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 905, 906, 907-908, 909 of 2004
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 10024/2001, 1107/2001, 4252-4253/2001 and 7685/2001)
And
Civil Appeal No. 8499/2001
Decided on 10-2-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Harish N. Salve, F.S. Nariman, Sr. Advocates, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Mohd. Wasay Khan, Roy Abraham, Ms. Seema Jain, Himinder Lal, Pallav Sishodia, Ms. Kavita Dahiya, Ms. Shirin Khajuria, Rajan Narain, Ms. Puja Sharma, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ms. K. Amaresari, Sr. Advocate, Guntur Prabhakar, T.V. Ratanam, K. Subba Rao, P.S. Narasimha, P. Sridhar, Ananga Bhattacharya, G. Seshagiri, Advocates for M/s. P.S.N. & Co., K. Ram Kumar, Advocate.
JUDGMENT
G.P. Mathur, J.-Leave granted.
These appeals by special leave have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 27.9.2000 of a Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court by which a batch of writ petitions were disposed of with certain directions.
2. We will state the facts of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20787 of 2000. Seedsman Association, Hyderabad and two other seed companies filed writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution impleading the Principal Secretary to Government, Agricultural Department, Director-cum-Commissioner of Agricultural Marketing Committee, Hyderabad and 16 Agricultural Market Committees of some Districts in the State of Andhra Pradesh as respondents. The main prayer made in the writ petition is that the action of the respondents especially those of respondent Nos. 3 to 18 in compelling petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 to pay market fee under Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 be declared as illegal and arbitrary and the same may be set aside.
3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it is averred that Seedsman Association, Hyderabad is an Association registered under the Societies Act for looking after the interest and welfare of the members who are organizing seed production, processing and marketing seeds under the provisions of Seeds Act, 1966 and the Seeds (Control) Order, 1983. From the date of sowing the Breeder/Foundation seeds, the petitioners responsibility is to procure the seeds produced according to the procedure laid down in the Indian Minimum Seed Certification Standards, 1988, which are not meant for human consumption but for the exclusive purpose of sowing only. It is further averred that the members of the petitioner association procure the special kind of seeds though they are produced from agricultural land. Since the seeds are not meant for direct human consumption, they do not fall within the definition of the "consumer seeds" as notified under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). After exchange affidavits, the High Court disposed of a bunch of writ petitions by the common judgment and order dated 27.9.2000 and the operative portion of the order reads as under:
(1) That all such items like paddy, wheat, maize, bajra, cotton seed, sunflower, safflower, jowar, etc., covered by this batch of writ petitions, which are specified in the Scheduled-II appended to the A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 whether sold in original form i.e. edible or converted form i.e. chemically processed into non-edible form (seeds for germination purposes), within the precincts of notified market area/market yard, are exigible to the levy of market fee.
(2) That such seeds like Tomato and castorseeds, which are derivatives of the main produce, but are sold separately and which are not specified in the Schedule-II annexed to A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, cannot be made liable to the levy and collection of market fee.
(3) That such items specified in Schedule II referred to above which suffered the payment of market fee in an Agricultural Market Committee, shall not again be subjected to payment of market fee in any other Agricultural Market Committee, within the State of Andhra Pradesh, if the proof of such payment is furnished to the authority concerned.
(4) That the petitioners shall now submit the accounts to the respective committees within a period of one month from today, whereupon the respective Agricultural Market Committees shall make assessment of the market fee payable and within one month of the service of the said assessment orders, the petitioners shall pay off the said amounts; and
(5) That henceforth, the petitioners shall be liable to comply the provisions of A.P. (Agricultural Produ
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. Pilibhit Pantnagar Beej Ltd.
State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Agricultural Input Dealers Association
SupremeToday
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.