Orissa High Court
Ms Shyam Baba Food Industries vs State Of Orissa Represented By The ... on 15 September, 2017
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
O.J.C. No.12958 of 1996
O.J.C. No.13550 of 1998
AND
W.P.(C) No.3873 of 2003
In the matter of applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
-------
M/s.Maa Bhuasuni Roller Flour Mills ......... Petitioners
(In OJC No.12958/1996)
M/s.Shyam Baba Food Industries
(In OJC No.13550/1998)
Jatni Chamber of Industries and Commerce
(In W.P.(C) No.3873/2003)
Versus
State of Orissa, represented by
the Secretary, Department of Cooperation,
Orissa and another ......... Opp. Parties
For Petitioners : M/s.B.N.Tripathy and B.N.Joshi and
B.Mishra
(In all the writ petitions)
For Opp. Parties : Mr.Prasanjeet Mohapatra
Additional Standing Counsel
(For O.P.No.1 in all writ petitions)
M/s.L.Pradhan, A.K.Mohanty,
B.K. Sharma G.K.Dash
S.Jeee and P.K.Mohanty
(For O.P.No.2 in OJC No.12958 of
1996 and O.J.C. No.13550 of 1998)
M/s.S.Mohanty, N.C. Sahoo, S.Mohanty
and R.R. Swain
(For O.P.No.2 in W.P.(C) No.3873/2003)
.........
PRESENT:
THE HON‟BLE DR. JUSTICE D.P.CHOUDHURY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing:29.08.2017 Date of Judgment:15.09.2017
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-2-
Dr. D.P.Choudhury, J. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the
inaction of the opposite parties in collecting the market fee on the
finished goods and the notification dated 21.11.1994 issued by the
Government of Orissa, Cooperation Department on the ground that it
contravenes the provisions of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets
Act, 1956 (hereinafter called as the "Act, 1956").
2. Since the above three writ petitions have got common
question of law, they are being taken up together for disposal by this
common judgment.
FACTS
3. The adumbrated facts of the petitioners are that the
petitioner in OJC No.12958 of 1996 is an industrial unit carries on its
business of manufacturing Atta, Maida, Suji etc. after purchasing wheat
from different sources, i.e, from outside market, Food Corporation of
India and from local market also. The petitioner in OJC No.13550 of
1998 is also an industrial unit carries on its business of manufacturing
Chura (flattened rice) and Atta, Maida and Suji. The petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.3873 of 2003 is an association of Millers and Traders and it
carries on business of milling the agricultural market produces within the
Jatni Regulated Market Committee area and challenges the notification
dated 04.02.2003 issued by the Government of Orissa in Cooperation
Department notifying Mung Dal, Biri Dal, Buta Dal and Harad Dal as
agricultural produces.
-3-
4. Under the provisions of the Act, 1956 and the Rules made
thereunder, there is fixed guidelines for declaring the market area and
procedure to deal with the agricultural produces which would solely on
the benefit of the agriculturists and also the procedure for collection of
the market fee on the agricultural produces.
5. Be it stated that Section 11 of the Act, 1956 defines the
procedure for levy of market fee on the agricultural produce and its rate.
The petitioners' units, being industrial units, carrying on business in
manufacturing of Atta, Maida and Suji and in course of its business,
purchases Wheat from the local market as well as from the Food
Corporation of India and outside market for use/processing of the same
in the unit and is not for any other purpose of export or buying and
selling as such in the market area.
6. It is further averred that the impugned notification from the
opposite party no.2 with annexures has been received by the petitioners
wherein Suji, Atta and Maida are included under the heading "Cereal" to
the Schedule of the Act. The opposite party no.1 published the
impugned notification in the Official Gazette and after expiry of the
objection period, communicated the said notification to opposite party
no.2, which was only communicated to the petitioners on 4.11.1996.
Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1958 (hereinafter called as
"the Rules, 1958") depicts that the fees shall be levied on agricultural
produces brought from the outside market area into market for use by
any industrial concern situated within the market area or for export
-4-
subject to condition that a declaration in respect of the produce has
been made and certified in Form-IV. But the petitioners claim that their
units cannot be levied with market fee. The Schedule of the Act, 1956
and Rules made thereunder defines "Wheat" as the agricultural produce
under the heading "Cereals" and Wheat products are not Cereal in the
amendment of the Act for which Atta, Maida and Suji are not agricultural
produce and cultivators are no way connected with the transaction of
said items in a Market area. On the other hand, opposite party no.2 in
connivance with opposite party no.1, contravening Section 3 and Section
4(7) of the Act, 1956 made the impugned notification dated 21.11.1994
vide Annexure-1. The claim that such notification is illegal and improper
due to non-compliance of the mandatory provision to bring the same to
the textbooks. So, the petitioners challenge such notification on the
ground that Sujit, Ata and Maida, being not finished products of the
Wheat, levying market fee on such products of the petitioners, is illegal
and improper. Since the notification adding such product to the
definition of agricultural produce and there is no proper legislative
process followed, meeting such provision is not only ultra vires but also
legal and proper. So, the writ petitions have been filed challenging such
notification having not followed the mandatory provisions of the statute
while incorporating Annexure-1.
7. Per contra, the opposite party no.1-State has filed a counter
affidavit refuting the allegations made in the writ petition. It is the case
of the opposite party no.1 that under Section 26 of the Act, 1956, the
-5-
State Government has got power to amend or cancel any of the item of
agricultural produce specified in the Schedule. So, the Government,
being competent, included Suji, Maida and Ata as agricultural produce
after following necessary procedure to include the same in the Schedule
of agricultural produces. Accordingly, the impugned notification was
made and the opposite party no.2 was informed in accordance with law.
As per Rule 48(3) of the Rules, 1958, the agricultural produce brought
from the outside for the purpose of processing by the industrial concern
situated within the market area or for export from such area, shall be
subject to levy of market fee unless he furnishes a declaration in respect
of such produce and the certificate in Form-IV to any officer or servant
of the Market Committee. Since the petitioner has brought agricultural
produces into the market area and processed it in the industrial unit and
thereafter sold the same to purchaser like M/s.Prakash Enterprises as
evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition, said purchaser required to
pay the market fee while levying market fee on the processed
agricultural produce like Ata, Maida and Suji likewise Ata, Maida and Suji
are process items of Wheat and in view of Section 26 read with Section
2 (1)(i) of the Act, 1956, the notification dated 25.11.1988 is not illegal
and collection of market fee on these items as per Section 11 of the Act
is also illegal and proper. Since under Section 4 of the Act, the Gazette
Notification has been issued for general public and the petitioners, being
traders within the public, has got every legal right to file objection failing
which it can be said that issuance of notification dated 25.11.1988 was
-6-
wrong and illegal. Hence, the collection of market fee on such items
included in the Schedule of the Act, 1956 as agricultural produce at the
instance of opposite party no.2 is correct and proper for which the writ
petitions be dismissed.
8. The Regulated Market Committee, Jatni, opposite party no.2
has also filed a counter affidavit stating therein that under Section 4(1)
of the Act, 1956, the State Government is empowered to enact and
include agricultural produce or goods to be levied in a specific market
area of a Regulated Market Committee notified from time to time after
receiving objection under Section 4(2) of the Act. In the instant case,
the State Government, with due notice to the general public and local
bodies, included Wheat as an agricultural produce and subsequently, the
State Government, vide notification dated 23.5.1994 included Suji,
Maida and Atta, Maize and Flattened Rice (Choora), Lentil (Masur),
Poultry, eggs, fish and dry fish for levy of market fee for Jatni RMC. The
notification was issued after observing all the formalities of preparing
legislation vide Gazette Notification and communicated to opposite party
no.2. Since then, opposite party no.2 issued notice to the petitioners to
show cause as to why the market fee on the arrival of goods on truck
number mentioned in the schedule failing which criminal action would be
taken. Thereafter, the petitioner filed show cause stating that the
petitioners-unit is not liable to pay any market fee and opposite party
no.2 sent a reminder to produce the purchase and sale register of wheat
-7-
and wheat products and its valuation so that the market fee would be
assessed.
9. It is the case of the opposite party no.2 that it is a Statutory Body,
being bound by the notification of the State Government, has levied
market fee upon declared goods of the petitioners and the petitioners
cannot raise any objection to the collection of such market fee.
10. Be it stated that the dictionary meaning of "Cereal" is any
grain used for food as Wheat, Oats and as the Atta, Maida and Suji are
products of Wheat, the same are coming under "Cereal" and, therefore,
the opposite party no.2 is legally competent to collect the market fee on
such products from the petitioners.
11. A rejoinder to the counter of opposite party no.2 filed in OJC
No.12958 of 1996 has been filed reiterating the facts mentioned in the
writ petition. It is stated in the said rejoinder that the Government
Notification vide Annexure-B/2 series asking for payment of market fee
on Suji, Atta, Maida is in contravention to the provisions of the Act,
1956 and the rules made thereunder because no opportunity was given
to the petitioners to file objection when such products were included in
the notification as agricultural produce.
12. Mr.Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners are industrial units carrying on business
manufacturing Atta, Maida and Suji from Wheat procured from outside
sources. According to him, the petitioner purchased the Wheat from
outside to process the same in the market area whereafter they used to
-8-
sell the same. The State Government has not followed the correct
legislative process to include Suji, Maida and Atta and different kinds of
Dal under the purview of agricultural produce so as to collect the market
fee when sold. He further submitted that the opposite parties have erred
in law by issuing notification in 1994 with vague grounds.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that
the opposite party no.1-State Government has not invited objections
from general public including the petitioners to amend the Schedule
attached to the Act, 1956 so as to include the Atta, Maida and Suji and
other Dal products under the Schedule of the Act and the notification
was never put up before the Legislatures to issue impugned notification
for which such Legislation lacks bona fideness and falls short of to
declare the same as agricultural produce.
14. Mr.Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners further
submitted that Suji, Atta and Maida being finished products and not
having kept the originality of the Wheat, which is admittedly the
agricultural produce cannot be said to be agricultural produce including
the Schedule for applying Section 11 of the Act, 1956 to collate the
market fee. Similarly, he submitted that the notification to include the
Dals as agricultural produce is also defective for want of proper
legislature process followed as these Dals cannot be taken as Cereals so
as to cover up by the Schedule of the Act, 1956.
15. Mr.Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners further
submitted that since the legislative process has not been followed, the
-9-
Gazette Notification of the State Government showing these items as
part and parcel of the agricultural produce as defined in the Act, 1956 is
bad in law and suffers from vires and accordingly the same should be
set aside.
16. Mr.Mohapatra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
State submitted that as per the formality given in Section 4 of the Act,
1956, the notice inviting objection was issued and due to non-receipt of
any objection from the public, the State Government added Suji, Maida,
Atta and Dals in the relevant schedule of the Act, 1956 as agricultural
produce. Since they are included as agricultural produce, Section 11 of
the Act, 1956 directs for collection of market fee by the opposite party
no.2-RMC. Apart from this, the Government has also issued notification
under Sub-section 7 of Section 4 of the Act, 1956 for sale of these
products as agricultural produce. So, the opposite party no.2-RMC has
justifiably levied market fee from the purchaser of these products while
the petitioners have sold the same to the purchaser.
17. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2, supporting the
contention of the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-
opposite party no.1, submitted that since the products have been
included by the State Government in Cooperation Department allowing
the petitioners to levy market fee, the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners should be rejected and the amount already paid
should not be allowed to return.
- 10 -
18. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
The main points for consideration are as to (I) whether Suji,
Maida, Atta and Dals are agricultural produce; and (ii) whether the State
Government has followed the procedure for issuing the notification for
including Suji, Maida, Atta and Dals as agricultural produce in the
Schedule of the Act, 1956.
19. DISCUSSIONS
POINT No.(I)
It is admitted fact that the petitioners have got industrial
unit inside the market area of Jatni and they bring Wheat from outside
to process the same and sell the same inside the market area and the
RMC used to collect the market fee from the purchasers. It is not in
dispute that Dals, Atta, Maida and Suji are being sold by the petitioners
in the market area after the same being processed having been brought
from outside.
20. Before going further on the facts, the law on the subject is
required to be dichotomized. Section 11 of the Act, 1956 has been
amended in the following manner:
"11. Levy of fees-It shall be competent for a Market
Committee to levy and collect such fees (hereinafter referred to
as the market fees) not being less than one rupees from every
purchaser for every hundred rupee worth of agricultural produce
marketed in the market area in such manner as may be
prescribed and at such rate as may be specified in the bye-
laws:
Provided that the rate of fees to be specified in the
bye-laws shall not exceed three percent of the value of
agricultural produce sold in the markets within the
market area:
Provided further that no such fees shall be levied and
collected in the same market area in relation to any
agricultural produce in respect of which fees under this
section have already been levied and collected therein:
- 11 -
Explanation-For the purpose of this section all notified
agricultural produce leaving a market yard shall unless
the contrary is proved, be presumed to have been
brought within such yard by the person in possession
of such produce."
21. Rule-48 of Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1958 is
produced below for better reference.
"48. (1) The Market Committee shall levy and collect
market fees from:
(a) a purchaser notified agricultural produces
marketed in the market area;
(b) The person deemed to be a purchaser under the
explanation to Section 11 of the Act in respect of the
notified agricultural produce; and
(c) The persons bringing any notified agricultural
produce into the market area for the purpose of
processing or for export only, but not processing it
therein or exporting it therefrom within the period of
thirty days as provided in the provisos to Sub-
section(6) of Section 4 of the Act, at such rates as
may be specified in its bye-laws, subject to the minima
and the maxima specified in Section 11 of the Act;
(2) The Market Committee shall levy and collect
licence fees from traders, adatyas, brokers, weighmen,
measures, surveyors and warehousemen operating in
the market area at such rates as may be fixed in its
bye-laws.
(3) A person brining any notified agricultural produce
from outside the market area into the market area, for
the purpose of processing by his industrial concern
situated within the market area, if any, or for export
from such area, shall be subject to levy of market fee
unless he furnishes a declaration in respect of the
produce and the certificate in Form-IV, to any Officer
or servant of the Market Committee specifically
authorized by the Committee in that behalf at the time
of entry of the said produce into the market area
Provided that if the agricultural produce is not used by
the industrial concern and is removed from the market
or if it is not exported within twenty days of the
purchase, the Market Committee shall levy and collect
fees on such agricultural produce from the industrial
concern or the persons furnishing the certificate at
such rates as may be specified in its bye-laws.
(4) Retail sale of agricultural produce by the producer
shall be exempted from any fees.
- 12 -
Explanation-"Retail Sale" in respect of any agricultural
produce means the sale of such agricultural produce in
any calendar day not exceeding the quantity or value
specified in the bye-laws of the Market Committee.
(5) Purchase of any agricultural produce in any
calendar day not exceeding the quantity or value
specified in the bye-laws of the Market Committee, by
a buyer for his domestic or household consumption
shall be exempted from the payment of any fee.
22. From the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that the market fee
is to be levied under Section 11 of the Act, 1956 as per the manner
prescribed in Rule-48 of the Rules, 1958. It is also clear that the
agricultural produce has been defined in Section 2(i) of the Act, 1956,
which is quoted hereunder in the following manner:
"(i) „Agricultural Produce‟ means such produce
(whether processed or not) of agriculture, forest,
animal husbandry, agricultural, horticulture and
pisciculture as are specified in the Schedule"
23. From the aforesaid provision, it may not be out of place to
mention that the agricultural produce has notified in the Schedule if
brought inside the market area for sale and purchase or processed must
be exigible to market fee.
24. Section 26 of the Act, 1956 says as under:
"26. Amendment of Schedule- The State
Government may, by notification, add to amend of
cancel any of the items of agricultural, produce
specified in the schedule."
From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the State
Government from time to time can add the agricultural produce in the
Schedule for their transaction or processed in the market area for larger
interest of the agriculturists and farmers. It is true that if there is
declaration made by the traders about storing of same for certain period
as revealed from Section 4(4) of the Act, 1956, the same would not be
- 13 -
exigible for payment of the market fee. In the instant cases, no such
plea has been taken. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners is that under no circumstances, Suji, Maida and Atta can be
termed as agricultural produce as they are finished produce of Wheat
which is undoubtedly an agricultural product as notified earlier.
Similarly, Dals have also been added subsequently although Cereals are
agricultural produce as per the definition of the Act, 1956.
25. The question now arises how to recognize a product as
agricultural produce and whether the State Government can make entry
of same in the list of agricultural produce arbitrarily or has got any
nexus with the aims and objects of the Act, 1956.
26. At paragraphs-13, 14, 15 and 16 of the judgment in the
case of Saraswati Sugar Mills vs Haryana State Board and Others;
(1992) 1 SCC418, the Hon'ble Supreme Court have observed in the
following manner:
"13.The use of the word processing is also significant.
Processing of vegetable products industry are normally
understood in the sense they relate processing of vegetables
which even after processing retain its character as vegetable.
14.Processing: Section 3(1), Marine Product Export
Development Authority Act, 1972 defines processing in relation
to marine products, as including the preservation of such
products as canning, freezing, drying, salting, smoking, peeling
or filleting or any other method of processing which the
authority made by notification in the Gazette of India, specify in
this behalf. Section 2(g) of the Agricultural and Processed Food
Products Export Development Authority Act, 1985 defines
processing in relation to scheduled products as including the
process of preservation of such products such as canning,
freezing, drying, salting, smoking, peeling or rilleting and any
other methods of processing which the authority made by
notification in the official Gazette specify in this behalf. Thus
processing as generally understood in marine, agricultural and
food products industries is an action, operation or method of
treatment applying it to something. It is refining, development,
- 14 -
preparation or converting of material especially that in a raw
state into marketable form. It would be interesting to note that
this Act contains a Schedule of "the agricultural or processed
food products" which are to be governed by the Act which reads
as follows:
THE SCHEDULE (See Section 2(i)
1. Fruits, vegetables and their products.
2. Meat and meat products.
3. Poultry and poultry products.
4. Dairy products.
5. Confectionary, biscuits and bakery products.
6. Honey, jaggery and sugar products.
7. Cocoa and its products, chocolates of all kinds.
8. Alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages.
9. Cereal products.
10. Cashewnuts, groundnuts, peanuts and walnuts.
11. Pickles, chutneys and papads.
12. Guar Gum.
13. Floriculture and floriculture products.
14. Herbal and medicinal plants.
15. In CST v. Abdul Rehman Alladin, AIR 1964 Guj. 27 the
expression "who processes any goods" in the Bombay Sales Tax
was held to refer to the subjecting of any goods to a treatment
or process. In Addl. CIT v. Farrukhabad Cold Storage,
(1977) 2 ITJ 202 held that processing of goods means that
the goods must be adopted for a particular use. The variety of
acts performed in respect of goods or their subjection to a
process need not be such as may lead to the production of any
new article. The act of subjecting goods to a particular
temperature for a long period of time as in cold storage
amounts to processing of goods. On the other hand
manufacture is a transformation of an article which is
commercially different from the one which is converted. The
essence of manufacture is the change of one object to another
for the purpose of making it marketable. In Union of India v.
Delhi Cloth and General Mills, AIR 1963 SC 79 this Court
pointed out:
"The word 'manufacture' used as a verb is generally
understood to mean as "bringing into existence a
new substance" and does not mean 'merely' "to
produce some change in a substance", however
minor in consequence, the change may be."
In the same decision, the following passage from the
Permanent Edition of Words and Phrases from an American
Judgment was quoted with approval:
"'Manufacture' implies a change but every change is
not manufacture, and yet every change of an article
is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation.
But something more is necessary and there must be
transformation, a new and different article must
emerge having a distinctive name, character or
use."
- 15 -
The essential point thus is that in manufacture something is
brought into existence which is different from that originally
existed in the sense that the thing produced is by itself a
commercially different commodity whereas in the case of
processing it is not necessary to produce a commercially
different article.
16.Processing essentially effectuates a change in form, contour,
physical appearance or chemical combination or otherwise by
artificial or natural means and in its more complicated form
involves progressive action in performing, producing or making
something. Vide Corn Products Refining Co v Federal Trade
Commission: CC A7, 144F 2d 211.
With due regard to the aforesaid decision, Their Lordships
have distinguished between "processing" and "manufacturing".
Processing of any product is normally understood that since they relate
to processing of that material which even after processing retains the
character of vegetable. On the other hand, manufacturing is a
transformation which is converted. In the instant case, Suji, Maida and
Atta, being the products after processing of Wheat of common
commercial parlance, the Suji, Maida and Atta can be said as processed
food. It is trite in law that with regard to interpretation of statute, the
welfare of the statute requires liberal construction whereas at the same
time, statute requires strict construction. Since the Act, 1956 is more or
less describes for levying the market fee, the same becomes the fiscal
statute requiring strict construction. It will not be out of place to
mention here that Section 11 of the Act,1956 is about levy of the
market fee on processed or non-processed agricultural produce. So,
Suji, Atta and Maida cannot be said to have got separate entity bereft of
the Wheat product. So, the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that Suji, Maida and Atta cannot be on the same family of
Wheat as congruous. So far as Dal is concerned, the Dals of all variety
- 16 -
are nothing but containing the subject of Dal be it Harar, Masoor, Moong
and Biri for which they are also under the same family, no character is
lost at all by grinding the same or process the same except the
requirement of same according to the need of the people. When the
original character is not lost after being processed, the product cannot
be taken to another family so as to make the concerned product out of
agricultural product.
27. As Wheat and other Cereals are the agricultural produce in
its raw form and the products stated above are brought out after being
processed without having any separate identity except the nature of use
of the same by human being, they are also same definition of
agricultural produce in common parlance
28. In terms of the above discussion, the Court is of the view
that Suji, Atta, Maida and Dals are agricultural produce being at par with
Wheat. Point No.(I) is answered accordingly.
29. POINT No.(II)
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the notification issued in 1994 was not issued in consonance with
the provisions of the Act, 1956 for which Atta, Maida, Suji and Dals
cannot form part of the Schedule on which the entry fee would be
leviable. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties 1
and 2 vehemently opposed the move by stating that the entire process
for inclusion of such products in the Schedule as agricultural produce
have been observed meticulously. Before going to answer the
- 17 -
submissions and rival submissions, it is pertinent to point out the
provisions of law. Section 2(1)(i) of the Act, 1956 states that agriculture
produce means such produce (whether processed or not) of agriculture,
forest, animal husbandry, agricultural, horticulture and pisciculture as
are specified in the Schedule. Section 26 of the Act, 1956 says that the
State Government may by notification, add to amend or cancel any of
the items of agricultural produce specified in the Schedule.
30. From the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the Schedule of
the Agricultural produce is always subject to addition and alteration
according to the need of the market and the people using such
agricultural produce. On the other hand, the Schedule must contain the
agricultural produce duly notified by the State Government. On going
through the Schedule, it appears that under the category "Cereals",
wheat, paddy and rice are covered and similarly under the category of
"Pulses", Biri Dal, Harad Dal, Masoor Dal, Buta Dal and other products
are covered.
31. Section 3 of the Act, 1956 is reproduced below for better
appreciation:
"3. Notification of intention of exercising control over
purchase and sale of agricultural produce-(1) The State
Government may be notification declare its intention of
regulating the purchase and sale of such agricultural produce
and in such area, as may be specified in the notification. Such
notification may also be published in the regional language of
the area in a newspaper circulated in the said area or in such
other manner as the State Government may deem fit."
Sub-section (7) of Section 4 of the Act, 1956 is also
reproduced below:
- 18 -
"(7) Subject to the provisions of Section 3, the State
Government may at any time by notification, exclude from a
market area, any area comprised therein or any agricultural
produce in relation to such market area, or include in any
market area, any area or any agricultural produce included in a
notification issued under Section 3."
32. Now, a conjoint reading of aforesaid provisions of the Act,
1956 makes it clear that the State Government has got every right to
declare any agricultural produce to be included in the Schedule of the
Act, 1956 for the purpose of sale of such produce after necessary
objections/suggestions invited from the public. Similarly, the State
Government has also domain to include or exclude any agricultural
produce in relation to such market area by following the same process,
as required to declare any agricultural produce as part of the Schedule
under Section 3 of the Act, 1956. When there is natural interpretation or
natural meaning, the interpretation of statute does not require any
assistance outside the language of Section 3 and Sub-section (7) of
Section 4 of the Act, 1956 which are very clear.
33. Placing such ideal of interpretation, going through the
concerned original file of the Government of Orissa in the Department of
Cooperation, it reveals that there was a proposal by the RMC, Jatni to
add Suji, Maida, Atta, Maize, Flattened Rice (Choora) etc. as agricultural
produce in respect of the market area of RMC, Jatni and the proposal
was made to invite objections/suggestions after draft preliminary
notification is made. Such proposal has also been approved from the
concerned Hon'ble Minister in the Cooperation Department on
19.05.1994. The Government Notification shows that on 23.05.1994 objections/suggestions, as per the provisions of the Act, 1956, were
- 19 -
invited from the public for inclusion of such products as agricultural produce by allowing one month time and in both Oriya and English language, the said notification was issued. The note-sheet of the Government of Orissa in the concerned file further reveals that on 02.08.1994, the Joint Director of Cooperative Societies (Marketing) informed that no objection or suggestion has been received from any quarter by 02.08.1994 for which he has requested to issue final notification to include those products as agricultural produce. The note- sheet also shows that final notification was issued being duly approved by the concerned Hon'ble Minster of the State Government. So, necessary notification of the State Government was issued on 21.11.1994 by including Suji, Maida, Atta etc. as agricultural produce in accordance with Sub-section (7) of Section 4 of the Act, 1956 for purchase and sale in the market area of the RMC, Jatni. Thus, the entire process has been followed to declare Atta, Suji, Maida etc. as agricultural produce by the State Government for their purchase and sale in the market area of RMC, Jatni. It has been already discussed in the aforesaid paragraphs that Suji, Maida, Atta etc. as a process product of Wheat which has already been taken place in the Schedule as agricultural produce under the provisions of the Act, 1956. So, the contention of Mr.Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners that no legislative process has been followed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1956 to declare such products as agricultural produce and at no stretch of imagination, they are agricultural produce, are all futile
- 20 -
exercise and the same are untenable. The Point No.(II) is answered accordingly.
34. CONCLUSION In the writ petitions, it has been prayed to quash Annexue-1 which declares Suji, Maida, Atta, Maize, Flattened Rice (Choora), Lentil (Masur), Fish and Dry Fish, Poultry and Eggs as agricultural produce for purchase and sale in the market area of RMC, Jatni. In the aforesaid writ petitions, there is no argument advanced to declare all such produce added in the Schedule as ultra vires to the provisions of the Act, 1956 except the produce of Atta, Maida, Suji and Masoor Dal. Further, it is prayed to issue direction not to collect market fee upon such agricultural produces. It has already been held that since Dals, Atta, Maida and Suji have already been included as per the request of the RMC, Jatni in the Schedule of the Act, 1956 as agricultural produce after following the necessary process of law as enshrined under the provisions of the Act, 1956, it cannot be said that proper procedure under the provisions of the Act, 1956 has not been followed. Moreover, it has been observed that they have been justifiably added as agricultural produce being tested on the touchstone of these products being process of agricultural produce which has already been notified in the Schedule of the Act, 1956. No other legal point was buttressed by Mr.Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioners to take any other view than the views expressed above. Hence, the impugned notification dated 21.11.1994
- 21 -
vide Annexure-1 issuing for purchase and sale of Atta, Maida, Suji, Maize, Flattened Rice, Masur Dal etc in the market area of RMC, Jatni and collection of market fee on such produce in accordance with the provision of the Act, 1956 and Rules made thereunder are legal and proper.
35. In the result, the writ petitions sans merit for which they stand dismissed.
....................................
Dr.D.P.Choudhury,J Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 15th Day of September, 2017/B.Nayak