The interpretation of the exemption of producers from the purview of the Act and the requirements of permit and market fee for the transport and sale of agricultural produce under Section 24(1) and (2).

1. Hariharaputhra Plantations Limited (plaintiff) has lost in both the Courts below. Hence, it has filed this second appeal.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit, (i) for declaration against Kanyakumari Market Committee and another (defendants), that the plaintiff being agriculturist-producer of raw rubber, is exempted from taking licence from the defendants under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulations Act, 1987 and are not liable to pay any market fee on the sale and transport of raw rubber and has the right to transport the raw rubber grown by them in their estates, the course of inter-state sales and sales outside the notified area, without having any liability to get any permit from the defendants or to pay the market fee to the defendants, (ii) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from insisting the plaintiff to get permits or on payment of market fees and (iii) for recovery of money which was paid as market fee earlier.

3. According to the plaintiff, it is an agriculturist-producer of raw rubber from the land belonging to them. As a producer of rubber, the agricultural product, the plaintiff is totally exempted from the purview of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act, 1989 (Act 27 of 1989) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The plaintiff is only a grower and as such, it cannot be construed to be a trader and as provided under Section 24(5) of the Act, a permit is required for the transport to place outside the notified market area only from the trader and it would not apply to the producers. The defendants insist that the plaintiff should take permit and then collected the market fee also from the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff sought for declaration and injunction.

4. The case of the defendants is as follows:

The rubber produced by the plaintiff was sold within the Kanyakumari District. When the transaction of sale is concluded within the notified area, then the liability of the market fee arises. The Act is not exempting the inter-state purchasers from the liability of payment of market fee for the purchase made in the notified market area. The Act empowers the Market Committee to levy and collect the market fee even from the producer-seller when the sale of produce is effected within the notified market area and consequently, the permit is required. Hence, the plaintiff would not be entitled to the reliefs sought for.

5. The trial Court framed necessary issues and on the basis of the above pleadings, dismissed the suit while considering the materials placed by both parties. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the lower appellate Court, which in turn confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the second appeal has been filed.

6. Mr. B. Rajendran, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would elaborately argue and contend that the plaintiff is not a trader and as a producer of the agricultural product, namely rubber, the plaintiff is totally exempted from the purview of the Act. Under Rule 33(4) of the Rules framed under the Act and Section 24(5) of the Act, the tax is liable to be paid only by the purchaser and the permit is required for the transport of agricultural produce to the places outside the notified area only by the trader.

7. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appelant that both the Courts below have failed to take into consideration that no sale is effected by the appellant within the notified area and as such, both the Courts have committed illegality in not passing a decree in favour of the plaintiff.

8. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court reported in AIR 1996 Madras 29 (Raja Palayam Paruthi Panchu Sangam v. State of Tamil Nadu), learned counsel for the appellant contended that the intention of the Act is only to protect the interest of the producer and the permit under Section 24 (5) of the Act for transport of agricultural produce outside the notif