1. Dispute regarding whether a co-operative society supplying fertilisers to members on a no-profit-no-loss basis is a dealer requiring registration under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985. (Para 1 , 2 )
2000 Supreme(SC) 645
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Doraiswamy Raju : V.N.Khare
State Of Punjab
Versus
Guno Majra Co Operative Agriculture Service Society Limited
Case No. : 13713 of 1996
Date of Decision : 3/29/00
Supply of fertilisers to members of a co-operative society on a no-profit-no-loss basis, without open market sales, does not constitute "carrying on the business of selling" and therefore does not make the society a "dealer" requiring registration under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985.
Headnote:(A) Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 - Clause (2)(f) and Clause (7) - Definition of 'dealer' - Requirement of registration - Whether a co-operative society supplying fertilisers to its members on a no-profit-no-loss basis constitutes a 'dealer' - A person carrying on the business of selling fertilisers must obtain a certificate of registration - If a society is formed to render service to its members for agricultural activities and is prohibited by its bye-laws from selling in the open market, such activity is not commercial or business activity - In the absence of business activity, the society cannot be termed a 'dealer' within the meaning of the Order and is not required to obtain a licence. (Paras 1-3)
Facts of the case:
A co-operative society registered under state law was required by authorities to obtain a certificate of registration for selling fertilisers. The society's bye-laws stipulated that its object was to provide agricultural requirements, including fertilisers, to its members on a no-profit-no-loss basis to promote production, and expressly prohibited sales in the open market or to non-members.
Findings of Court:
The society is not carrying on any business in fertilisers as its activities are limited to distribution among members for the purpose of cultivation without any commercial motive.
Issues: Whether the co-operative society is a 'dealer' within the meaning of Clause (2)(f) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, for the purposes of registration under Clause (7).
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the supply and distribution of fertilisers to members of a society on a no-profit-no-loss basis, where open market sales are prohibited, does not constitute "carrying on the business of selling fertilisers." Consequently, such an entity does not fall under the definition of a 'dealer' and is not required to be registered.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the non-commercial supply of fertilisers to members of a co-operative society constitutes carrying on business, thereby necessitating registration under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985. (Para 2 )
3. Distribution of fertilisers to members on a no-profit-no-loss basis, restricted to members and not the open market, does not constitute commercial or business activity. (Para 3 )
4. An entity is not a dealer under the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, if the supply of fertilisers is for service to members without commercial or business activity. (Para 3 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the society is not required to obtain a certificate of registration. (Para 4 )
6. Who is considered a dealer under Clause (2)(f) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985?
A dealer is defined as a person carrying on the business of selling fertilisers, whether wholesale or retail (or for industrial use), and includes manufacturers, pool handling agencies carrying on such business, and their agents. (Para 1 )
7. Does the supply of fertilisers to members of a co-operative society on a no-profit-no-loss basis constitute carrying on business?
No. When a society distributes fertilisers solely to its members to promote agricultural production on a no-profit-no-loss basis and is prohibited from selling in the open market, no commercial or business activity is involved. (Para 3 )
8. Is a registration certificate required for entities that do not engage in commercial business activities when supplying fertilisers?
No. Since registration under Clause (7) of the Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985, is required for those carrying on the business of selling fertilisers, an entity not engaged in business activity is not a dealer and is not required to take a licence. (Para 3 )
(1) THE only question that arises in this appeal is whether the Agriculture Service Society is a dealer within the meaning of Clause (2)(f) of Fertiliser (Control) Order, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) for the purposes of Clause (7) of the said Order. Clause (2)(f) and Clause (7) of the Order read as under : "Clause (2)(f) dealer means a person carrying on the business of selling fertilisers, whether wholesale or retail (or industrial use), and includes a manufacturer and a pool handling agency carrying on such business and the agents of such person, manufacturer or pool handling agency; Clause (7) Dealers to be registered No person, including a manufacturer, a pool handling agency, (a wholesale dealer, a retail dealer and an industrial dealer) shall offer for sale or carry on the business of selling fertilisers at any place except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a certificate of registration granted to him under Clause 9: Provided that a State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, exempt from the provisions of this Clause any person selling fertilisers to farmers in such areas and subject to such conditions as may be specified in that notification."
(2) A perusal of Clause (2)(f) and Clause (7) of the Order shows that any person carrying on the business of selling of fertilisers has to obtain a certificate of registration which is to be granted under Clause (9) of the Order. The respondent is the Agriculture Service Co-operative Society and is registered under the Punjab Co-operative Societies Act, 1961. The Society has its own registered bye-law. The appellants herein required the respondent Society to obtain a certificate of registration under Clause (7) of the Order. This was disputed by the respondents. Under such circumstances, the respondents filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the same was allowed, and it was held that since the respondent Society is not carrying on any business in fertilisers, therefore, the Society is not required to obtain a certificate of registration. Under such circumstances, the appellants are in appeal before us.
(3) IT is not disputed that the respondent society is the Agriculture Service Society and it has got its own bye-law. The members of the Society are agriculturists, who require manure, fertilisers and implements for cultivation. The object for which the respondent Society was formed is to render service to its members for carrying out agricultural activities. One of the objects of the Society, as indicated in the bye-law, is to make arrangement for supply of agriculture requirements for its members as well as to supply manure, fertilisers, improved seeds, insecticides and other production requisites with a view to promote increased agricultural production. Another object of the Society is to give loans and also to give manure, fertilisers and improved seeds to its members on credit on no profit no loss basis. Under the bye-law, it is not permissible for the respondent Society to sell fertilisers in open market or to anybody else other than its members. From the aforesaid functions of the Society it is apparent that there is no commercial or business activity involved when the Society distributes and supplies fertilisers to its members. The purpose for which the Society has been formed is to help its members in the matter of cultivation. In fact, fertilisers purchased by the Society is for supply and distribution to its members and not for any commercial or business activity. In the absence of any business activity, the respondent Society could not be said to be a dealer within the meaning of Clause (2)(f) of the Order and, therefore, they were not required to take licence under Clause (7) of the Order. We are in agreement with the views taken by the High Court.
(4) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordin