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

1985 Supreme(Pat) 338

HIGH COURT OF PATNA
N.P. SINGH & Y. S. SINGH, JJ.
The Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. - Petitioner
Versus
Director, Marketing, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Patna and another. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1329 of 1985
Decided on : 30.11.1985

Advocates appeared:
For the petitioner: Messrs K.D. Chatterji, K.P. Ambastha, and Kali Das Chatterji.
For the Respondents: Messrs Ram Janam Ojha and K.P. Yadav.

The new definition of “agricultural produce” introduced by Act 60 of 1982 includes all produce of agriculture, horticulture, plantation, animal husbandry, forest, sericulture, pisciculture, livestock, or poultry, including the processed and manufactured products of such produce.

Headnote:

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE - COCONUT OIL - BIHAR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETS ACT, 1960 - SECTION 2(1)(A) - WHETHER COCONUT OIL IS AN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE - INTERPRETATION OF THE DEFINITION OF 'AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE' - RELEVANCE OF SCHEDULE - NEW DEFINITION INTRODUCED BY ACT 60 OF 1982.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a manufacturer of crystal clear refined coconut oil, challenged an order of the Director, Marketing, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, holding that refined coconut oil is a vegetable oil and, therefore, an agricultural produce within the meaning of section 2(1)(a) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (the Act). The petitioner contended that coconut oil was not an agricultural produce because coconut is not a vegetable and, therefore, coconut oil cannot be included under the item “vegetable oil” in the Schedule of the Act.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that, under the new definition of “agricultural produce” introduced by Act 60 of 1982, coconut oil is an agricultural produce. The court reasoned that the new definition delinks “agricultural produce” from the Schedule of the Act and includes all produce of agriculture, horticulture, plantation, animal husbandry, forest, sericulture, pisciculture, livestock, or poultry, including the processed and manufactured products of such produce. Therefore, the court held that coconut oil, as a processed product of coconut, is an agricultural produce.

Issues: Whether coconut oil is an agricultural produce within the meaning of section 2(1)(a) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960.

Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the definition of “agricultural produce” in section 2(1)(a) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, and held that the new definition introduced by Act 60 of 1982 includes all produce of agriculture, horticulture, plantation, animal husbandry, forest, sericulture, pisciculture, livestock, or poultry, including the processed and manufactured products of such produce. Therefore, the court held that coconut oil, as a processed product of coconut, is an agricultural produce.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitioner's application, holding that coconut oil is an agricultural produce within the meaning of section 2(1)(a) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960.

JUDGMENT :

N. P. Singh, J. - The petitioner bas filed this writ application for quashing an ORDER :dated 18.5.1984 passed by the Director, Marketing, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Board') holding that the refined coconut oil is a vegetable oil, and, as such, an agricultural produce within the meaning of section 2(1)(a) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act').

2. It is the case of the petitioner that it manufactures crystal clear refined coconut oil for use as a hair oil which is sold in different markets of Bihar. It has been stated that since the year 1975 the petitioner had been receiving notice from the authorities of the respondent-Board directing the petitioner to get itself registered as a trader in accordance with the provisions of the Act in respect of coconut oil. The petitioner has resisted the said claim by saying that coconut oil was not an agricultural produce within the meaning of section 2(1)(a). According to the petitioner, unless coconut oil is held to be a vegetable oil it is not covered by any of the items mentioned in the Schedule of the Act. It was submitted that coconut cannot be held to be a vegetable so that its oil can be included under the item “vegetable oil”. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on the definition of 'agricultural produce' as it stood before the amendment introduced by Act 60 of 1982. Section 2(1)(a) was as follows :

‘agricultural produce’ includes all produce, whether processed or non-processed of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry and forest specified in the Schedule."

It was submitted that all produce whether processed or non-processed of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry and forest as specified in the Schedule of the Act shall only be deemed to be agricultural produce. Our attention was drawn to the different items of the Schedule .and it was pointed out that there was no mention of any coconut oil against any of the items of the schedule.

3. Before 1 express my opinion as to whether coconut oil can be held to be an agricultural produce within the meaning of the expression as originally defined, I may point out that the definition of 'agricultural produce' has been substituted by Act 60 of 1982, which came in force on 30.4.1982 and is as follows :-

^^d`f”k mit^^ ls vfHkizsr gS d`f”k n|ku & d`f”k ¼ckxokuh½] cxkuksa] i’kq&ikyu] ou] js’ke&mRiknu] eRL;ikyu dh lHkh mit pkgs og fo|kf;r ¼rS;kj½ gks ;k vfo/kkf;r % fofufeZr gks ;k ugh] vkSj blds vUrxZr vuqlwfp es ;FkkfofufnZ”V i’kq/ku ;k dqDdqV] vkfn Hkh gSA

The English rendering of the said new definition is as follows :-

'agricultural produce' means all produce whether processed or non-processed, manufactured or not, of agriculture, horticulture, plantation, animal husbandry, forest sericulture, pisciculture and includes livestock or poultry as specified in the schedule,"

The new definition appears to have been introduced in the background of controversies raised in different courts as to whether agricultural produce shall include even the manufactured products of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, etc. While saying in clear and unambiguous term that 'agricultural produce' shall mean not only the product of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry, forest etc. in its original form, but also what has been processed and. manufactured from such original products, the definition has to a great extent delinked "agricultural produce" from the Schedule of the Act. Under the original definition only such produce or products could be held to be agricultural produce which had been 'specified in the Schedule. The present definition has no such •restriction. Reference to the schedule of Act is only in the context of livestock and poultry and that is also an inclusive one. In other words, now agricultural produce shall mean all produce of agriculture, horticulture, plantation, animal husbandry, forest,. se







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