2024 Supreme(Kar) 640
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.
Sri. Lakshmi Poultry Complex - Petitioner
Versus
The Director Of Agricultural Marketing And Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.60294 of 2010 (APMC), Writ Petition No.106635 OF 2017 (APMC)
Decided On : 06-11-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sri Harsh Desai, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri Shivaprabhu Hiremath, Aga, Sri Mallikarjun C. Basareddy, Advocate
Poultry farming is classified as an agricultural activity exempt from licensing under the APMC Act when food grains are purchased for personal agricultural use.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 - Section 8 - Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 - Section 2(1)(d) - Writ petitions challenging APMC endorsement requiring license for food grain purchase for poultry feeding - Petitioners argue grains are for personal agricultural use, not trade - Court finds poultry farming is agricultural activity exempt from APMC regulations - Endorsement quashed. (Paras 1, 4, 17, 19)
(B) Licensing Requirements - APMC Act regulates commercial marketing of agricultural produce - Petitioners not engaged in trading, thus licensing not applicable - Court emphasizes distinction between personal agricultural use and commercial transactions. (Paras 8, 16, 18)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners engaged in poultry farming, purchasing food grains for personal use, challenged APMC's requirement for licensing under the APMC Act.
Findings of Court:
Petitioners' activities classified as agricultural, exempt from APMC licensing requirements.
Issues: Whether the purchase of food grains for poultry feeding constitutes a commercial activity requiring licensing under the APMC Act.
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that the APMC Act does not apply to personal agricultural use, reaffirming poultry farming as an agricultural activity exempt from commercial regulations.
Result: Writ petitions allowed; APMC endorsement quashed.
ORDER :
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.
The captioned writ petitions have been filed challenging the endorsement and notices issued by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), wherein petitioners have been directed to obtain license from the APMC under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, for the purchase of food grains used for feeding poultry. The petitioners contend that the food grains are being purchased solely for personal consumption and not for trading purposes, and hence, the endorsement and notices issued are illegal and unsustainable.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The petitioners have been engaged in the business of poultry farming. The petitioners are engaged in large-scale poultry farming, rearing around five lakh birds, and purchases food grains to feed the birds.
3. In response to the petitioners operations, the respondent/APMC issued an endorsement requiring the petitioner to obtain a license under the APMC Act, contending that the procurement of food grains for poultry feed falls under the regulation of the APMC. The petitioners challenges this endorsement, arguing that the food grains are purchased exclusively for personal use in the poultry farm, not for trade, and hence no license is required.
4. The petitioners assert that its poultry farming operation, which involves the feeding of a large number of birds, is classified as an agricultural activity under Section 2(1)(d) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The purchase of food grains for feeding birds in a poultry farm is inherently linked to agricultural use, and thus the petitioner argues that it does not fall under the commercial trading activities regulated by the APMC Act.
5. Furthermore, the petitioners contend that the APMC Act is meant to regulate the buying and selling of agricultural produce in a market context. Since the petitioners are purchasing food grains strictly for its own consumption, there is no element of trade or commercial transaction involved. The petitioners emphasize that the endorsement issued by the APMC is therefore without legal basis and should be quashed.
6. On the other hand, the respondents argue that the scale of the petitioners operations, which involves rearing five lakh birds, qualifies as large-scale consumption of food grains. The respondents claim that any entity involved in purchasing agricultural produce in large quantities must obtain a license under the APMC Act, regardless of whether the produce is used for commercial trading or personal purposes. The respondents assert that the regulatory framework of the APMC Act is designed to ensure transparency and protect farmers in the sale of agricultural produce. Therefore, even though the petitioners are using the food grains for feeding poultry, the magnitude of the procurement requires regulatory oversight and licensing.
7. Upon reviewing the relevant legal provisions, it is clear that under Section 2(1)(d) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, poultry farming is explicitly defined as an agricultural activity. This classification has significant implications for the present case. Agricultural activities are generally exempt from the commercial regulations applicable to the buying and selling of agricultural produce. The Court finds that the petitioners procurement of food grains for the sole purpose of feeding birds in a poultry farm constitutes an extension of this agricultural activity.
8. Section 8 of the APMC Act regulates the marketing of notified agricultural produce in a market area. It provides that no person can use any place in the market area for the marketing of such produce or operate as a trader, commission agent, or other market functionary without a license granted by the market committee.
9. The critical aspect of this provision is that it applies to marketing activities within a market area. The term "marketing" refers to buying and selling activities that involve the commercial transaction of agricultural produce