Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(6) Labha Ram and Sons and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors., (7) Decision rendered by a Single Judge of this Court in Mangalore Cashew Manufacturers' Association and Anr. v. Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee and Anr., W.P. Nos. 10893 and 10894 of 1998 In the above said Mangalore Cashew Manufacturers' Association's case, the learned Single Judge of this Court while interpreting cashew kernel and cashew nut, held that cashew kernel and cashew nut are different and therefore held that since cashew kernel is not included in the Schedule to the Act, it was not an agricultural produce and therefore Market Committee had no jurisdiction to control marketing activity in respect of cashew kernel. The above said decision is of no avail to the case of the appellants/petitioners as in the instant case as arecanut in English is called as supari in Hindi. Further. Serial Nos. 5 and 6 to Schedule deals with coconut and copra. Admittedly, they are different commodities. The contention of the learned Counsels for the petitioners that de-husked areca is supari like that of cashew nut and cashew kernel holds no water. For example, if a coconut is plucked from the tree and sold as it is or de-husked coconut, the nature and identity does not change. Likewise, in the instant case of areca, merely because of removing fibrous rind covering the seed, it would not change its nature and identity. It is not out of place to mention that the learned Single Judge considered all the cases cited by the learned Counsels for the petitioners and came to the right conclusion that the arecanut and supari would constitute the same commodity, and not two different and independent commodities. There is no difference between areca and supari and it cannot be said that areca and supari are two different products. As stated earlier areca is referred to as supari in North India and in South India it is referred to as areca. Therefore, we are of considered view that arecanut and supari constitute the same commodity and not two different and independent commodities. Hence, we answer question No. (i) in the affirmative.

3. It is not correct to state that supari has been recognised as a separate product. On the contrary, Supreme Court dealt with a case from Maharashtra under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and in Maharashtra areca was known by the name supari. Indeed this illustrates the point that areca in Karnataka is referred to as supari in Maharashtra.

4. Reliance was also placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Roller Flour Mills Association's case, supra. The Supreme Court held that flour or maida or suji are different commodities from wheat. This judgment will not help the traders since we are of the view that supari and areca are not two different commodities and are the same.

5. Indeed the learned Advocate General assisted the Court as Amicus Curiae. He referred to certain articles by reputable authors on the history of areca. All these authorities indicate that what is areca in Karnataka is known as supari in North India and it is also referred to by other names in different parts of India.

6. In the Dictionary to the Economic Products of India by George Watt, Vol. I, areca is defined as follows:

"Vern.--The nut: Supari, Supyari, HIND, and DUK; Gua, Supari, BENG.; Tambul, ASS.; Poka-vakka, vakka, TEL.; Kamugu, pakku, kottai-pakku, TAM.; Adike, KAN.; Supari, hopari, phophal, GUJ,; Supari, MAR.; Adka, kavugu, atakka, MAL.; Puga-phaiam, gubak, SANS.; Fofal, or foufal, ARAB.; Gird-chob, popal, PERS.; Puwak, puvakka, SINGH.; Kwan-thee-beng, kunsi, kun, kun thee-bin, BURM.; Ah-bud-dah, ah-pur-rud-dah, AND".

19. It is a crying shame that the traders have found some objection or the other to avoid shifting into the yard.

20. The Commissioner's report clearly indicates that all the infrastructure is ready and available to enable the traders to shift.

21. It is not possible for the traders to create a fiction that supari is different from areca and build a case that supari is different from areca. No foundation has been laid before this Court to show that supari is a different product from areca. On the contrary clinching materials have been placed before this Court by the learned Advocate General that areca in Karnataka is known as supari in North India and elsewhere. Merely because in some parts of India areca is known as supari cannot be the ground for holding that areca and supari are two different products.