Judgment

R. M. SAHAI, J.:- Validity of Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1961 (for brevity the Act) levying market-fee on sale and purchase of agricultural produce in market-yard or sub-market-yard was challenged by dealers for lack of legislative competence, violation of Articles 14, 19, 301 and 304 of Constitution, absence of any quid pro quo in the fee paid and service rendered, illegal and arbitrary inclusion of manufactured articles such as Khandsari, Shakkar, Gur and Sugar as agricultural produce in the schedule etc.

2. Acts of other States, for instance, Punjab and Haryana and U.P. were also assailed for similar infirmities. Whether these petitions, which appear to be identical, are reproduction of any of those petitions, which were pending in this Court from before is not relevant but various group of petitions of Punjab and Haryana dealers challenging constitutionality and legality of Act and its provisions including Gur, Khandsari and Shakkar as agricultural produce in the schedule of Punjab Act have been dismissed by different benches presumably because of decisions in Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab (1979) 3 SCR 1217, Ramesh Chandra v. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCR 104, Rathi Khandsari Udyog v. State of U.P. (1985) 2 SCR 966 and Sreenivisa General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1983 SC 1246 (1264).

3. Despite these decisions spelling out basic principles for determining validity of marketing legislations dealing with agricultural produce the petitioners were not willing to take it lying down probably because none of these decisions dealt with sugar. It was urged that inclusion of sugar in the Schedule of the Act was arbitrary, primarily because it being a declared commodity of public importance under Entry 52 of List I of Schedule VII the State legislature was precluded from legislating on it. Its inclusion in the Schedule was also assailed as it being a Mill or Factory produce it could not be deemed to the agricultural produce which is basically confined to produce of or from soil.

4. Sugar is one of the items which was included in the Schedule to the Act, statutorily, right from its inception. Such inclusion is found in Maharashtra, Gujarat, West Bengal, Bihar etc. Whether it was subsequently deleted or re-included or re-grouped or it was added later was immaterial as Section 40 of the Act empowered State Government to amend or include any item in the Schedule of agricultural produce. Existence of such delegated power is usual feature of the statutes. No illegality or infirmity could be pointed out in it. Any challenge, therefore, founded on excessive delegation of legislative power was misconceived.

5. Inclusion of sugar in the Schedule was urged to be arbitrary as it was not produced out of soil the basic ingredient of agricultural produce. Fallacy of the submission is apparent as it was in complete disregard of definition of the word "agricultural" produce in the Act which includes all produce whether agricultural, horticultural, animal husbandry or otherwise as specified in the Schedule. The legislative power to add or include and define a word even artificially, apart, the definition which is not exhaustive but inclusive neither excludes any item produced in mill or factories nor it confines its width to produce from soil. If that be the construction then all items of animal husbandry shall stand excluded. It further overlooks expanse of the expression "or otherwise as specified in the Schedule". Nor switch over from indigenous method of producing anything to scientific or mechanical method changes its character. Khandsari sugar, which is produced by open pan process and is not different from sugar produced by vacuum pan process except in composition, filterability and conductivity as held in Rathi Khandsari Udyog (AIR 1985 SC 679) (Supra) was held to be agricultural produce in some decisions. No distinction was made on method of production, namely, by modern plant and machinery. To say, th