N. Y. HANUMANTHAPPA, J.

( 1 ) THE challenge in this batch of writ petitions is to the competent of the agricultural Market Committees to levy and collect market fee on Ghee, under the provisions of the A. P. (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act, 1966 (for short the Act ), at one per cent on sale of ghee and further insisting on the dealers dealing in ghee to obtain licences and maintain proper records.

( 2 ) THE facts as narrated by the petitioners are as under: The petitioners are traders dealing in ghee. According to them they purchase ghee from farmers and transport the same out of the State of Andhra pradesh. Ghee is prepared out of butter through mechanised process. From Milk, curd is prepared and butter is churned from the curd. However, under the mechanised process butter is also extracted directly from milk. After the butter is prepared it is put to heating process to get ghee, which is a by-product of butter. Under the provisions of the Act, market fee or cess is levied on different items of livestock and products of livestock by the Agricultural Market committees (for short the Committee ) constituted by the Government under sections 3 and 4 of the Act. Under section 12 of the Act, the notified agricultural Market Committees are empowered to collect market fee in respect of the agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock. The State government while constituting the agricultural Market Committee for Guntur and Ongole, included ghee as one of the items of livestock. When it was represented to the authorities that ghee is not a live stock product and if it is allowed to continue hardship would be caused to traders, the Government issued G. O. Ms. No, 448, Food and Agriculture (Agri. IV) department, dated 29-3-1972, deleting the item ghee from the Annexure to the notification issued in G. O. Ms. No. 976, Food and Agriculture Department dated 16-7-1971. Thus, ghee is neither agricultural produce nor a livestock product. As such the petitioners contend that they are not liable to pay any market fee or cess on the sale of ghee. According to the petitioners, ghee is not sold in the market yard or in the notified area. As such there cannot be any demand for payment of fee on sale of ghee. No facilities are provided to the traders in ghee in the market yard. According to them, if any, fee is proposed to be levied or ordered to be levied, then there shall be quiet pro quo.

( 3 ) IT is further submitted that apart from manufacturing ghee, the petitioners are also importing ghee from other parts of the State and Whenever the commodity enters the state) the check-post authorities are trying to insist upon payment of market fee. According to the petitioners, as no facilities are provided by the Market Committees to the traders of ghee, the Market Committees are not entitled to either demand or collect the market fee, if any.

( 4 ) IT is further submitted by the petitioners that the demand of the authorities for payment of market fee on ghee is in contravention of the decision of the Apex Court in Keval Krishnan vs. State of punjab.

( 5 ) IT is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that without providing any special benefits, the demand for the market fee from the traders of ghee is in contravention of the decision of the this court in Pan Merchants Wholesale commission Agents Association vs. M. R. O. Since ghee has been withdrawn from the notification of live-stock products, again proposing to levy fee on such product is not correct. According to the petitioners, ghee is almost similar to dry fish . In support of their contention, they relied on a decision of this Court in Sri Lakshmi Dry Fish Traders vs. State wherein it was held that dry fish i-; not live-stock.

( 6 ) IT is submitted that in order to include a particular item of livestock or a product of livestock as an item for levying the market fee, it must have a direct bearing with reference to the produce and not

Click Here to Read the rest of this document