B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) EXIGIBILITY of market fee on the sale of seeds, which are inedible and meant for germination under the provisions of the andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as a. P. Markets Act ), is the question for consideration.

( 2 ) THE petitioners either sell or purchase seeds such as, Sunflower, Maize, Jowar, bajra, Paddy, Jute, Wheat, Tomato, safflower etc. The fact that they are operating the said sales or purchases within the market areas notified by the government of Andhra Pradesh is not disputed. But, they dispute their liability to pay market fee on the premise that the seeds meant for germination are not the agricultural produce and their transactions are governed by the Seeds Act, 1966 (a central enactment), hereinafter referred to as the seeds Act and not under the A. P. Markets Act. Among the petitioners are the individual traders, companies who deal in seeds. Their association has also joined in this legal battle. Their common stand is that after the seeds are treated chemically, they are preserved for sale for germination purposes after satisfying the requirements of the Seeds Act and Rules framed thereunder including that of conforming to the standards set under the above statute and the rules, they arc obliged to take the permission from the authorities under the seeds Act and are not obliged to take any permit or pay market fee under the provisions of the A. P. Markets Act.

( 3 ) M/s. P. Venugopal, S. Ravi and other learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently submit that only such agricultural produce, which is edible, comes within the realm of the A. P. Markets Act and not the kinds of seeds which are sold by the petitioners, as the said seeds are not edible and lose the character of agricultural produce, the moment they are treated chemically and preserved and sold for germination. The judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Rajasthan Agriculture Input Dealers association, Babu Ram Jagdish Kumar and Co. vs. State of Punjab and the judgment of the madhya Pradesh High Court in Satyapal anand vs. State have been cited in support of their contentions. Alternative contention has been made by Mr. D. Sudhakar Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for some of the petitioners that even assuming that the market fee is liable to be paid, it is not leviable in each and every market committee in Andhra Pradesh and that once the commodity suffers market fee in any of the agricultural market committees in the state of Andhra Pradesh, the same should not be intercepted or levied with the market fee again. Countering the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned Counsel appearing for the government as also the Agricultural market Committees, submit that the word agricultural produce has got wide amplitude and is an inclusive definition and is not restricted only to such agricultural produce which is edible and that the seeds though meant only for germination, are equally exigible to market fee and cited the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in k. U. M. Samiti, Kanpur vs. M/s. Ganga Dal mills and Co. and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Narayana Rao and Sons vs. Govt. of A. P. Insofar as the contention with regard to double levy of market fee is concerned, it remained unanswered.

( 4 ) IT is true that if any of the provisions of the State Act clash with those of the central Act, then to the extent of that repugnancy, the provisions of the State Act become inoperative. That is what Article 254 of Indian Constitution say Now, we will go into the two Acts - A. P Markets Act (State Act) and Seeds Act (Central Act) - to consider as to whether A. P. Markets Act clashes with the Seeds Act.

( 5 ) SEEDS Act deals with the seeds of food crops including edible oil seeds and seeds of fruits and vegetables, cotton seeds, seeds of cattle fodder, Jute Seeds and also seedlings, tubers, bulbs rhiz

Click Here to Read the rest of this document