Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

20. Further submission of Sri Shanthi Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in this regard is that assuming for argument sake, a person whose notified agricultural produce is stored within the notified market area is a market functionary within the meaning of this phrase and as such for such purposes, the petitioner though could have been considered as a person obliged to obtain a licence, still as the petitioner has made proper arrangement for such compliance through its agent namely, M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation, the Market Committee can only look upto such person who actually operates in the market area for compelling it to obtain a licence or even for furnishing of the information and particulars of the notified agricultural produces stored in that market area. In this regard, learned Senior Counsel submits that we are in the era of what is known as 'business processes outsourcing'; that the practice of business processes outsourcing has come to stay; that it is an accepted business norm and practice which has developed for the past about 10 to 15 years; that a person who is in a business activity which has several stages can depending on the convenience and other commercial considerations delegate some part of the business activities to independent third parties who may have skilled expertise to perform that part of the business activity; that to the extent that some part of the business activity is so entrusted to a third person, the obligations of the person carrying on the business for compliance with various requirements is also passed on to the person to whom such activities are entrusted to i.e., to the extent any part of the business is out sourced, obligations are fastened on the outsources who performs the act and having regard to such current business practices, the petitioner has also sought to apply this practice to its business activity; that the petitioner has hired services of M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation for this precise purpose; that it is open to the petitioner to so arrange its business affairs and activities in such a manner that it is not only commercially profitable for the petitioner but can also relieve the petitioner of certain other statutory obligations and if such business practices which have come to be in vogue are to be recognised, it should be so held that the petitioner by itself is not obliged to comply with the requirements of Section 8 of the Act, but, it can be secured compliance even though its business associate.

21. The submission of learned Senior Counsel in this regard is that the provisions of Section 8 as also the provisions of Section 66 to the extent it is so permitted in the statute, should be so interpreted as to recognise such current business practices and commends this Court to interpret the provision in such a manner that adoption of business processes outsourcing is not excluded from the purview of the activities of the petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel has virtually urged this Court to apply and adopt a novel method of interpretation, an interpretation of a statutory provision which should keep in tune with the changing times and the current business trends. Learned Counsel submits that, in fact, it is precisely for such purpose and to take advantage of the provision of the statute to the extent that it so enables the petitioner, the petitioner has organised its activities in such a manner that the petitioner by itself does not physically carry out any operations in the market area by itself, but has it carried through its business associate and if that is the factual situation, the petitioner should not be exposed to avoidable harassment at the hands of the respondent 3-Market Committee by calling upon the petitioner to furnish particulars, details, informations etc., and the threat of possible prosecution if not complied.

(i) a Taluk Agricultural Produce Co-operative Marketing Society;
(ii) a Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society; and
(iii) any other Co-operative Society permitted by the State Government;
(b) the sale of notified agricultural produce by a retail trader".

What is of particular importance and relevance for the purposes of present petitions is the provisions of Section 8(1)(b)(ii). In this regard, the phrases of 'processor', weighman', 'warehouseman' and the residuary phrase "in any other activity" in relation to the marketing notified agricultural produce is of considerable importance. So far as the petitioner is concerned, on admitted facts, the petitioner is the owner of considerable quantities of a notified agricultural produce which is stored in a warehouse situated within the market area, notified to be the market area of the respondent 3-Market Committee. To this extent, there is no dispute. There is also no dispute that it is for the purpose of benefit of the petitioner that such agricultural produces are brought and stored in the warehouse and without any dispute the petitioner has control over the agricultural produces stored in the warehouse. It is at the behest of the petitioner such agricultural produce has been brought in the market area, is stored in the market area and in fact, also leaves the market area as per the instructions and directions of the petitioner. Under such facts and circumstances, the petitioner clearly comes within the definition of an 'importer' as defined under Section 2(14-A) of the Act. On the plain reading of this phrase, the petitioner is an importer notwithstanding the argument relating to the concept of business processes outsourcing and notwithstanding the fact that, in fact, physically it is M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation who while acting as an Agent of the petitioner brings the agricultural produces into the market area and stores it in the market area. While on facts, the arguments fails because the warehouse admittedly is taken on lease by the petitioner and if so is in the possession of the petitioner and the petitioner is definitely responsible for the agricultural produce stored or stocked in its warehouse, petitioner, in fact, also happens to be the owner of the very agricultural produce stored in this warehouse. It is the petitioner who causes the goods, namely, wheat and other agricultural produces to be brought inside this warehouse in the market area, the petitioner definitely is an importer. The definition of the term 'market functionary' under Section 2(21) includes an importer, a stockist etc. The petitioner answers the definition of not only an importer but also a stockist. Though there can be a debate as to whether the petitioner by itself becomes a warehouseman or not, there cannot be any dispute that the petitioner is an importer and also that the petitioner is a stockist within the meaning of these phrases as it occurs in the definition section of the Act. The obligation to obtain a licence under Section 8 on such person is clear and categorical.

36. The practice of business processes outsourcing is a practice that has come into vogue in recent times over the past ten to fifteen years in certain areas of business activities and business management. This is a practice which is particularly prevalent in the light of developments of what is known as 'Information Technology'. There has been an astounding break through in the fields of communication and dissemination of knowledge. The methods of communication have vastly changed. Mode of communication and dissemination of knowledge has also undergone a revolutionary changes. The conventional concept of dissemination of knowledge through the print media has given way to the dissemination of knowledge through digital processes. Breakthrough in science and technology has achieved the wonder of storing vast information at the tip of a point. Access to information is also made easier, quick and without hassle through the medium of digital communication; through the net and through the employment of satellites. Business activities are not necessarily carried out through conventional processes at a place known as office but can also be carried out at the place of the employee, at the place of the business partners wherever they may be located, accessed between one businessman and another located in different parts of the globe without moving from their place has become possible. It is in the development of such breakthrough in science and technology and getting a part of the business activity executed from persons who are not necessarily located at the main place of business of a particular businessman that has brought in the concept of business processes outsourcing. Commercial consideration such as variances in the service charges at different places on the earth has contributed to the growth of this practice. To what extent such concept is relevant or applicable to the present situation is the question. The subject-matter is one of regulation of the activities of a person transacting or involved in the transaction of a notified agricultural produce in the market area. Certain obligations such as obtaining a licence are cast on such a person. The obligation is on the very person who carries on such activity within the market area. So long as a person carries on that activity which is an activity within enumerated ones for which obtaining of licence is mandatory under Section 8 of the Act is carried on by a person, there is no escape for that person from the obligation of obtaining a licence. In fact, non-compliance results in penal consequences. I am of the view a provision which imposes or creates certain obligations oh a person, the non-compliance of which attracts penal consequences is not an activity that can be said to be delegated to some other person for the purpose of avoiding the consequences. It is immaterial whether a person carries out or fulfills the obligation by himself or through an agency. The fulfillment is for the purpose of ensuring compliance by the very person and not that of the agent. In the present case, it is already noticed that the petitioner definitely answers the test of a market functionary. If so, the obligation of obtaining a licence is on the petitioner. It is no good answer to say that M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation who carries on the warehousing activity within the market area has obtained a licence. If at all, M/s. Central Warehousing Corporation has obtained a licence, it can save their claim to the extent they were required to obtain a licence under the Act. The benefit does not pass on to the person like the petitioner. It could have been a different matter if the agent acts as an agent for the principal, applies licence in the name and on behalf of the principal i.e., the petitioner M/s. ITC Limited, the licence is so obtained and in fact, necessary compliance are also secured on behalf of the petitioner by the agent. If all such compliances are procured by the agent in the name of the petitioner, perhaps that can be a good answer as the purpose of the Act is served. If the agent answers the queries on behalf of the principal and to the satisfaction of the Committee and nothing further is required to be done. So long as this has not happened, the Market Committee can definitely look upto the petitioner for such information, such particulars and for production of such accounts and documents. In fact, in the present case, it is precisely for this reason, the Market Committee has also issued notices to the petitioner as it was found that the answers given by the persons in charge of the warehouse and documents and accounts produced by them were not to the satisfaction of the Market Committee. The concept of business processes outsourcing cannot be called-in-aid to get over the obligation of obtaining a licence for carrying on an activity which is otherwise permitted only under the licence.