SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 573

Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.S. SINGHVI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU
Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti
Versus
M/s. Shiv Shakti Khansari Udyog & Others
CIVIL APPEAL NO.6186 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.19092 of 2006) With CIVIL APPEAL NO.6187 OF 2012 Arising out of SLP(C) No.3414 of 2007) CIVIL APPEAL NO.6188 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.3308 of 2007) CIVIL APPEAL NO.6189 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.3792 of 2007) CIVIL APPEAL NO.6190 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.4606 of 2007) CIVIL APPEAL NO.6191 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.4607 of 2007)CIVIL APPEAL NO.6192 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.4777 of 2007)
Decided on : 30-08-2012

IMPORTANT POINT
Applicability of Agricultural Produce Marketing Act to sugarcane.

Headnote:(a) Interpretation of statutes - Market Act, Sugarcane Act and Sugar Control Order - Market Act is a subsequent legislation and it aims to regulate buying and selling of agricultural produce including sugarcane - Sugarcane Act and the Control Order are special legislations exclusively dealing with issues relating to increase in the production of sugarcane, supply of sugarcane to the factories - General provisions of Market Act cannot prevail over the provision s of Sugarcane Act and the Sugar Control Order. (Para 18)

        (1999) 9 SCC 620; (2002) 4 SCC 125 - Relied upon

        (b) Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 - Section 19, 31 and 32 - Levy of fee on produce brought to the market - Cannot harmoniously co-exist with provisions of the Sugarcane Act. (Para 22)

        (c) Constitution of India - Article 254 (2) - Market Act not reserved for Presidential assent on ground of repugnancy with Sugarcane Control Order - Assent was not required as sugarcane was not covered by the Market Act - Market Act will not prevail upon Control Order. (Paras 24 and 28)

        (1985) 3 SCC 661; (2002) 8 SCC 182 - Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

        The questions which arise for consideration in these appeals are whether the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 are applicable to the transactions involving the purchase of sugarcane by the factories operating in the market areas of the State and whether market fee can be levied on such transactions.

       Finding of the Court:

        The Market Act will not apply to sale and purchase of sugarcane.

       Result : Appeals dismissed.

       

Judgment :-

G. S. Singhvi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The questions which arise for consideration in these appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and the Market Committees against the orders passed by the Division Benches of the Madhya Pradesh High Court are whether the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972 (hereinafter described as, ‘the Market Act’) are applicable to the transactions involving the purchase of sugarcane by the factories operating in the market areas of the State and whether market fee can be levied on such transactions.

3. The contesting respondents are operating sugar factories in different market areas of the State and have been purchasing sugarcane from Cane Growers and Cane Growers’ Co-operative Societies. Thus, they are covered by the general sweep of the Market Act because sugarcane is a notified agricultural produce and by virtue of Section 19, the Market Committees are empowered to levy market fee on the transactions involving purchase of sugarcane.

4. The respondents filed writ petitions for quashing the notices issued by the Market Committees requiring them to take licence under the Market Act and to pay market fee on the purchase of sugarcane, by asserting that the provisions of the Market Act are not applicable to the transactions which are exclusively governed by the Madhya Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1958 (for short, ‘the Sugarcane Act’) and the Sugarcane (Control) Order (for short, ‘the Control Order’) issued by the Central Government under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (for short, ‘the EC Act’).

5. The appellants contested the writ petitions and pleaded that there is no conflict between the Market Act on the one hand and the Sugarcane Act and the Control Order on the other because the two sets of legislations operate in different fields and in view of Section 19 of the Market Act, the respondents are bound to pay market fee on the purchase of sugarcane within the market areas.

6. The Division Bench of the High Court referred to the provisions of the Market Act, the Sugarcane Act and the Control Order and held that the transactions involving the sale and purchase of sugarcane are governed by Sections 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Sugarcane Act and Clauses (3), (4), (5), (5A) and (6) of the Control Order, which are in the nature of special legislations vis-à-vis the Market Act and, as such, market fee cannot be levied by the Market Committees. The reasons assigned by the High Court for arriving at this conclusion are contained in paragraph 17 of order dated 6.7.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 391/1995 and batch, which is extracted below:

“17. Sub-section (1) of Section 36 quoted above clearly provides that all notified agricultural produce brought into the market for sale shall be brought into market yard/yards specified for such produce and shall not, subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), be sold at any other place outside such yard. Sub-section (3) of Section 36 further provides that the price of the notified agricultural produce brought into the market yard for sale shall be settled by tender bid or open auction system and no deduction shall be made from the agreed price on any account whatsoever. Sub-section (4) of Section 36 of the Market Act further provides that weighment or measurement of all the notified agricultural produce so purchased shall be done by a licensed weighman in the market yard or any other place specified by the market committee for the purpose. Sub section (1) of Section 37 of the Market Act states that any person who buys notified agricultural produce in the market area shall execute an agreement in triplicate in such form as may be prescribed, in favour of the seller. Sub-section (2) of Section 37 provides for payment of price of agricultural produce brought in the market yard on the same day to the seller at the market yard and additional payment at the rate of o

















































































































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top