HARI LAL AGRAWAL, J.

1. The three petitioners in this writ application are challenging the notices issued to them on different dates by the Secretary of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Ranchi (Respondent No. 2), copies of which have been made Annexure 1, 1/a and l/b to this writ application, calling upon them to take out licences under the provisions of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (briefly the 'Act') as they were dealing in 'wool' one of the notified "agricultural produce" under the Act, on the ground that the commodity in which they dealt was not 'wool' but 'knitting wool' and entirely different commercial commodity.

2. Whereas the first two petitioners are the partners of the firm Messrs Wool Emporium and Wool House respectively, the third petitioner is the proprietor of Shandar Stores, all in the town of Ranchi. In order to appreciate the question raised for our consideration, I shall very briefly indicate the relevant provisions of the Act, and the Rules, namely, the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1962, framed under the provisions of the Act, (briefly the 'Rules'. According to Rule 11, "no person shall do business as commission agent or trade in agricultural produce in a market except under a licence granted by the Market Committee under this rule". The procedure for applying for licence and the necessary licence fee has also been prescribed thereunder, but they are not relevant for our purpose. The provision of rule 71 makes it obligatory upon every person who carries on any business in any of the agricultural produce in the Market to obtain a licence from the Market committee. The licensee is exposed to various obligations, such as keeping of books in such form and render such periodical returns and at such time and in such form as the Market Committee may from time to time direct and is also to render such assistance in the collection and prevention of the evasion of fees due under the rules and bye–laws.

The expression "Agricultural Produce" has been defined in section 2(a) of the Act, which reads as follows:–

"Agricultural Produce" includes all produce, whether processed or non-processed of agriculture, horticulture animal husbandry and forest specified in the Schedule (Emphasis is mine).

The expression "trade" and "trader" have also been defined in clauses (v) and (w) of section 2, but it is not necessary to refer to those expressions as it is not disputed that the petitioners are traders within their meaning. The pertinent question with which we are concerned in this case is whether the specified commodity "wool" would also include "knitting wool".

3. It is the admitted case that none of the petitioners deal in "wool" as such, but trade only in "knitting wool". The contentions that have been mooted from the side of the petitioners is that when wool under goes a series of processing, it is converted into knitting Wool and is rendered an entirely different commodity. According to the contentions of the contesting respondents, however, although knitting wool may assume a different shape, nonetheless, the expression "wool" which is a generic term would ipso facto include "knitting wool" as well. It is this controversy which has to be resolved in this case. From the definition of "agricultural produce", extracted earlier, it is manifest that within this definition, produce of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry and forest have also been included, and the same also includes their "whether processed or non-processed forms". The definition of "agricultural produce" by fiction of law, therefore, has been provided a very wide net to include in its fold various other kinds of products, otherwise which are not under stood to be so included in common parlance within the meaning of "agricultural produce" simplicitor.

None the less, in order to be covered under the mischief of the said definition, the produce must be "Specified in the Schedule."

The term "Schedule" it self has bee