1. Dispute over the power of a market committee to levy market fees on cattle under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1994 Supreme(SC) 1165
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.Ramaswamy : K.S.Paripoornan
Sita Devi
Versus
State Of Bihar
Case No. : 1770 of 1984
Date of Decision : 11/22/94
Advocates Appeared: Agrawal H.L. : Ahmed Irshad : Sanyal S.B. : Singh B.B.
Advocates:
B.B.Singh, H.L.Agrawal, IRSHAD AHMAD, S.B.SANYAL
B.B.Singh, H.L.Agrawal, IRSHAD AHMAD, S.B.SANYAL
The court held that cattle is 'agricultural produce' under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, as it is explicitly listed in the Schedule. Since the definition is inclusive and unambiguous, the market committee is authorized to levy market fees on cattle bought or sold in notified areas.
Headnote:Bihar Agriculture Produce Markets Act, 1960, Sec. 2(1)(a), 27, Schedule (classification 8, item 3)- power of Market Committee to levy market fee on sale or purchase of the cattle like huffalows, bullocks, cows - classification 8. item 3 of the schedule identifies cattle 10 be an agriculture produce - the definition is an inclusive definition - the legislature itself has specified diverse items in the schedule which are amenable to levy and collection of the market fee- the legislature having inditifying the cattle for levy of market fee it is not open to Court to scan its wisdom - the market committee is well within its power to levy and collect market fee when the cattle is bought or sold in the notified market area - AIR 1980 SC 1124 dist. (Paras 2 & 3)
Interpretation of statutes - Preamble - the policy and wisdom of the legislature can not be tested by taking aid of the preamble of the Act - Preamble of the Act is key to open the mind of the legislature when the language of the statute is ambicuous-absurdity of irrationality of bringing the enumerated items of agricultural produce within the sween of the legislature is not a principle of statute and the Court can not strike down the Act on its basis. (Para 2)
Act Referred
BIHAR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETS ACT: S.27
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether cattle constitutes agricultural produce under the Act and if the levy of market fees on such cattle is without jurisdiction. (Para 1 )
3. The court observed that the inclusive definition of agricultural produce in the Act, supported by the Schedule, explicitly includes cattle, overriding common parlance. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. When a statute provides an inclusive definition and explicitly lists an item in a schedule, that item is considered agricultural produce regardless of common parlance. (Para 2 )
5. Appeal dismissed; cattle held to be agricultural produce exigible to market fee. (Para 4 )
6. Does the common meaning of a term override an inclusive statutory definition?
No. If the legislature provides an inclusive definition and explicitly specifies an item in a schedule, that item is treated as falling within the definition, regardless of its common parlance meaning. (Para 2 )
7. When is the preamble of an Act used for interpretation?
The preamble serves as a key to understand the legislature's mind only when the language of the statute is ambiguous; it cannot override clear, specific, and explicit language. (Para 2 )
8. Can different forms of the same produce be subject to separate market fees?
Yes. If different products (e.g., paddy and rice, or milk and ghee) are separately identified as agricultural produce in the Act, each is exigible to a market fee. (Para 3 )
(1) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the division bench of the Patna High court in CWJC No. 1654 of 1974 dated 24/3/1983. The only question is whether market committee has power to levy market fee on buffaloes, bullocks and cows bought or sold on every Thursday in Sammaspur Hat. The division bench held that by operation of Section 2(l)(a) read with Item 3 in Classification 8 of the Schedule under the head "Animal Husbandry products" cattle is an agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of the market fee under Section 27 of the BIHAR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETS ACT , 1960 (Act XVI of 1960, for short "the Act". We find no force in the contention of Shri Sanyal, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant that the cattle is not an agricultural produce and the levy and collection of the market fee on the cattle bought or sold in the notified market is without jurisdiction. Section 15(1 of the Act provides that no agricultural produce specified in the notification under subsection (1 of Section 4, shall be bought or sold by any person at any place within the market area, other than the principal market yard or sub-market yard or yards established therein, except such quantity as may in this behalf be prescribed for retail sale or personal consumption. Sale or purchase of the agricultural produce in such areas shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any law, be made by means of open auction or tender system except in case of such class or description of produce as may be exempted by the Board. Section 27 of the Act is the charging section for levy of the market fee which reads thus:
"MARKET Committee shall levy and collect market fees on the agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area, at the rate of rupee one per Rs. 100.00 worth of agricultural produce."
The question, therefore, is whether cattle is an agricultural produce. Section 2(l)(a) defines agricultural produce thus:
"2. (1 In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context -
(A) agricultural produce includes all produce, whether processed or non-processed of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry and forest specified in the Schedule."
(2) AS stated earlier, in Classification 8 of the Schedule, Item 3 identifies cattle to be an agricultural produce. It is true that in the common parlance of animal husbandry cattle may not be considered to be an agricultural produce. But the definition is an inclusive definition and is of wide import. The legislature itself has specified diverse items in the Schedule which is part of the Actwhich are amenable to levy and collection of the market fee when the specified item is bought or sold in the notified market yard or sub-market yard or yard or in the notified area. In view of the fact that the legislature itself, on identifying the cattle to be an agricultural produce, laid its policy to subject cattle for levy of market fee, it is not open to the court to scan its wisdom. Though in the normal connotation cattle may appear to be not an agricultural produce, it needs to be given effect unless the legislature lacks competence which is not the case of the appellant. The policy and the wisdom of the legislature cannot be tested by taking aid of the preamble of the Act particularly when the language of Section 2(l)(a) is inclusive, unambiguous, specific and explicit. Preamble of the Act is the key to open the mind of the legislature when the language of the statute is ambiguous. Absurdity or irrationality of bringing the enumerated items of agricultural produce within the sweep of the legislature is not a principle of interpretation of the statute and the court cannot strike down the Act on its basis.
(3) THE inclusive definition in Section 2(l)(a) under the caption animal husbandry products, cattle has been specified as one of the items of agricultural produce for the purpose of Section 27 . We find that the market committee, therefore, is well w
