Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The petitioners purchase whole pulses (Dalhan), inter alia, from within the market area concerned and after processing the same into split Dal they sell the same. In Para. 4 of the petition it has been asserted that the respondent market committee through its Secretary under the threat of penalty, seizure of stocks and books of account, and prosecution, is realising market fee from the petitioners' firms on the purchase of whole pulses (Dalhan) as well as on sale of pulses processed by them, which means the split pulses and after the Dalhan has been processed. On 28-8-75 the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 along with some other firms of the area in question filed an application before the Chairman of the Market Committee objecting to the realisation of market fee on the whole grains as well as split pulses produced out of whole grains. The matter was heard at length several times by the Chairman but no final decision was given in the matter and the Secretary of the Committee (respondent No. 3) was regularly realising market fee on both whole grains and split grains. Under these circumstances an application was filed on 31-8-76 by the Secretary, Vanijya Parishad, Barh, on behalf of the Dal Mill owners of the area, including the petitioner firms, before the Chairman of the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, Patna, requesting him to clarify the legal position as to whether market fee is payable both on whole grains as well as on split grains. A copy of the application has been marked Annexure 1. In response thereto by the impugned letter dated 25-9-76 (Annexure 2) respondent No. 2 wrote back saying "if notified agricultural produce like Arhar, Gram, Paddy, Khesari, Masur and oil seeds are purchased within the market area and are processed and even if it is sold in the same market area, market fee is payable on both the points.

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

It is not in dispute that the notified agricultural produce, referred to in Section 27 (3) of the Act means an agricultural produce as defined in Section 2 (i) (a) of the Act, which, in its turn, means "in a form of processed or non-processed agricultural produce specified in the Schedule." So far as the Schedule is concerned, item No. II captioned 'Pulses' enumerates the pulses which can be treated as notified agricultural produce in so far as the pulses are concerned, The objects enumerated under the caption 'Pulses' in item II of the Sch, are (1) Gram (2) Arhar (3) Masur (4) Urd or Kalai (5) Khesari (6) Mung (7) Dry peas (Matar or Karao) f8) Kulthi (9) Cowpea seed (dry). In so far as the Schedule is concerned, under the heading 'Pulses' no distinction has been drawn between whole pulses, namely, Dalhan and the split pulses, which, we ordinarily treat as the objects for direct human consumption. From the definition of 'agricultural produce' in Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act, already extracted above, it is clear that all the pulses enumerated under item II referred to above, whether whole or processed must be treated as notified agricultural produce. To give a concrete example, when the item 'gram' is mentioned at serial No. 1 of item No. II in the Sch, it means gram as a whole with its shells which will be merely a form of Dalhan, It will also mean processed gram, which we ordinarily call 'gram pulse' or 'Chana Dal'. Both the objects -- gram as a whole or split gram after being processed and made fit direct for human consumption as an item of pulse -- are covered under the same notified agricultural produce, namely, gram; so also with regard to the other pulses enumerated under the caption 'Pulses', like Arhar, Masur, etc. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the market committee is vested with the power under the charging Section 27 of the Act to levy and collect market fees within the same notified area only once for any of the pulses enumerated under item II of the Sch, If, for instance, Arhar in its original shape with its shells is already subjected to levy of market fee in a market area, after its being processed into Arhar Dal it remains the same notified agricultural produce within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (a) of the Act. Manifestly, therefore, Section 27 (3) of the Act is a clear bar to the charging or levying of any market fee chargeable under Sub-section (1) more than once in the same notified area. The stand of respondent No. 2 or for that matter, the market committee that "if notified agricultural produce like Arhar, Gram, Paddy, Khesari, Masur and oil seeds are purchased within the market area and are processed and even if it is sold in the same market area, market fee is payable on both the points" cannot, therefore, be countenanced in law. Such a construction will be in clear contravention of the express statutory provision contained in Section 27 (3) of the Act. Annexure '2', therefore, has to be held to be illegal and based on a wrong construction of the relevant statutory provisions.

5. The Government Advocate, who appears for all the three respondents, could not combat the position in law that any of the pulses or grains, as distinct agricultural produce, enumerated in the Schedule, if once charged to market fee, which has been levied thereon at one stage or the other within a market area, cannot be subjected to levy of market fee twice over in the same market area even if the same has undergone a change after processing. The matter will certainly be different if in one form a foodgrain is notified as a distinct agricultural produce while in another form, after its being processed, it is enumerated as another distinct notified agricultural produce. For instance, under the heading 'Cereals' in Caption I of the Schedule we find paddy, rice and Chura as having been specified as three distinct agricultural produces; so also wheat, wheat Ata and Maida, have been distinctly enumerated and so notified. Similar is the case with the gram Besan, gram Sattu, etc. But that is not the question here. The petitioners have asserted that the same notified agricultural produce, which has been subjected to levy of market fee within the Barh Market Area, has been and is being sought to be subjected to levy of market fee twice over after it has been processed, although in the processed form, it is not identified in the Schedule as a distinct agricultural produce. There can thus be no scope for the argument that if gram or Arhar or Masur, etc. falling under the caption 'pulses', be it either in the processed or non-processed form, at one stage has been subjected to levy of market fee, merely its undergoing a change after processing will make it liable to a further charge of the market fee within the same market area.