The judgment established that the inclusion of agricultural produce in the Schedule under Section 39 of the Act does not require independent notifications under other sections, and no hearing is necessary for such inclusion.

ORDER

1. The validity of notification dated 27-12-1995 issued by the order of the Governor of Bihar in exercise of powers under Section 39 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (for short "the Act") was questioned by the respondents in the writ petitions before the High Court raising contentions that issuing of a notification under Section 39 of the Act including "chura" as an agricultural produce was not enough to levy market fee thereon without issuing notifications under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act; and issuing of a notification under Section 39 of the Act so as to include "chura" as an agricultural produce without giving opportunity of hearing to the respondents was bad.

2. The High Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and relying on its earlier decision in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Agricultural Produce Market Committeel accepted the contentions advanced on behalf of the writ petitioners and allowed the writ petitions declaring that merely on the basis of the impugned notification dated 27 -12-1995 and in the absence of any fresh notifications in respect of "chura" under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, it cannot be deemed to be within the regulatory measures of the Act and no market fee under Section 27 of the Act can be realised on its sale and purchase. Aggrieved by the said order of the High Court made in the writ petitions, these appeals have been filed.

3. Mr Ashwani Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the impugned order was passed by the High Court g on 4-7-1996. A review petition was filed by the appellant having regard to a subsequent judgment of this Court in the case of Sasa Musa Sugar Works v. State of Bihar2 but the review petition was rejected. He submitted that appeal has been filed against the said order rejecting the review petition as well. According to the learned counsel, the judgment in Sasa Musa Sugar Works2 fully covers the case in favour of the appellant. The impugned order was passed on the basis of the judgment of a Division Bench of that High Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd.l a reference to which is made in the judgment of this Court in Sasa Musa Sugar Works2. The position is made very clear in paragraph 30 of the judgment of this Court in Sasa Musa Sugar Works2 that in order to give effect to the notification issued under Section 39 of the Act including "chura" as an agricultural produce, no independent and separate notifications under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act were required. The learned counsel invited our attention to a few paragraphs in the said judgment in support of his submissions.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents submitted that the case of Sasa Musa Sugar Works2 requires reconsideration; at any rate, hearing ought to have been given to the respondents before a notification was issued under Section 39 of the Act including "chura" as an agricultural produce. In support of his submissions, he cited a few decisions on the question of giving of opportunity of hearing rendered under different circumstances and different sets of the facts of the case.

5. Having considered the respective contentions and having regard to the undisputed facts, we do not think that the case of Sasa Musa Sugar Works2 requires reconsideration. As to the question of hearing, in the said judgment in paragraph 38, it is specifically stated that for inclusion of an item in a notification issued under Section 39 of the Act, no hearing has been contemplated. When the provisions of the very Act are interpreted dealing with a similar situation, we do not think it necessary to consider any further, as to whether any hearing was required to be given. In paragraph 30, having considered all aspects of the matter, this Court has held thus: (SCC p. 705)

"30. After giving our careful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties,