AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramachandra Rao, J.—These Writ Appeals are preferred against the judgments of our learned brother Obul Reddi, J., (As he then was) in writ petitions Nos. 2268/72, 718/73 and 5686 of 1971 dismissing the writ petitions filed by the appellants petitioners, changing the notification made by the Government under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, (Hereinafter called the Act) constituting a notified area and also declaring Jaggery as ''agricultural produce'' for purposes of the Act. Our learned brother following his judgment in W.P. 5596/72 etc, batch dated 9-7-73 held that jaggary is "agricultural produce" within the meaning of section 2 (i) of the Act and dismissed the writ petitions.
In these writ appeals the only question raised is whether jaggery constitutes "agricultural produce" as defined in the said Act. Section 2 (i) defines ''agricultural produce'' as follows:--
(i) ''Agricultural produce'' means anything produced from land in the course of agricultural or horticulture and includes forest produce or any produce of like nature either processed or unprocessed and declared by the Government by notification to be agricultural produce for the purposes of this Act.
The notification issued by the Government in G.O. Ms. No. 2095 Food and Agricultural dated 29 10-1968 in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (3) of S. 3 of the Act, included Jaggery as item No 66 in the schedule II appended thereto.
Sri E. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the appellants contended that jaggery is produced by a manufacturing process i. e. by extracting sugar-cane juice from sugarcane adding lime to it and boiling the same to a high temperature and thereby jaggery looses its identity from sugarcane or sugarcane juice and therefore ceases to be ''agricultural produce'' within the meaning of the Act.
But we are unable to agree with this submission because the definition of ''agricultural produce'' takes in not only agricultural produce as such but also agricultural produce which is processed. Processing is defined in rule a (xix) of the rules framed under the Act as follows:-
''Processing'' means powdering, crushing decorticating, dehusging, parboiling, polishing, giuning, pressing, curing or any other treatment to which an agricultural produce or products of livestock is subjected to before final consumption.
This processing might involve even boiling process. It is contended by Sri Subrahmanyam, that rule 2 (xix) of the rules did not include the manufacturing process and on the other hand it mentioned only parboiling and not boiling at high temperature which is necessary for converting sugarcane juice into jaggery.
We find it difficult to accept this submission because in the definition of processing in the rule 2 (xix), various operations have been mentioned followed by the general expression ''or any other treatment'' to which an agricultural produce is subjected to before it is made fit for final consumption. The expression ''or any other treatment'' cannot be read in the context in which it appears as ajusdem genera is with the proceeding words. The words, ''or any other treatment'' have to be given a wide meaning and their meaning cannot be cut down by reference to the proceeding words. In our opinion the expression ''or any other treatment'' takes in the process of boiling and therefore the conversion of sugarcane juice by the process of boiling with addition or lime for purposes of removing impurities constitutes ''agricultural produce'' which is processed and therefore falls within the definition of ''agricultural produce'' u/s 2 (i) of the Act.
In W. A. No. 347/73 etc. batch while dealing with the question whether rice constitutes ''agricultural produce'' or not within the meaning of the said Act, we had occasion to refer to the scheme and object of the Act. In the said batch of writ Appeals, we held that the Act was intended to regulate the marketing of agricultural produce, that rice is one of the commodities which is extensively grown in this part of the country, that it constitutes a staple food of the people of this area and a large volume of trade takes place in the said commodity and that the Legislature would not have intended to omit such an important item from the purview of the Act Similarly sugarcane constitutes one of the major agricultural produce in this part of the State and it is extensively grown and utilised for the manufacture of sugar and jaggery. Sugarcane is one of the most important commercial crops and it constitutes one of the chief sources of sugar and jaggery. The canes are harvested after they are fully ripe and thereafter they are crushed and juice is extracted. We are not concerned with the cane meant for sugar factory, but so far as jaggery is concerned, the cane juice is boiled in iron Pans after adding a small quantity of milk of lime. After removing the scum, the juice is boiled to drive off the water and the concentration syrup is transferred to trays where is solidified and it then dried and stored. No doubt there is certain amount of processing of sugarcane juice for conversion of the juice into jaggery. But the definition of ''agricultural produce'' takes in not only the produce directly produced by agriculture but also agricultural produce which is processed. There can be no doubt and it is not disputed before us that sugarcane and sugarcane juice constitute ''agricultural produce'' within the meaning of section 2 (i) of the Act. But there is no reason why the sugarcane juice which is converted into jaggery by purifying the same and solidifying it by a simple process of boiling, cannot be termed as ''agricultural produce'' which is processed. We do not think that the mere solidification of sugarcane juice by the simple process of boiling would altogether change its identity as ''agricultural produce'' so as to take it out of the definition of ''agricultural produce'' which is processed.
A Division Bench of the Mysore High Court held in K.N. Marularadhya v. The Mysore State AIR 1970 Mys. 114 that jaggery is ''agricultural Produce'', within the meaning of Mysore Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act. In coming to the said conclusion, the learned judges made the following observations at page 136 :
Now, sugar-cane, it is not disputed, is agricultural produce. Jaggery which is manufactured out of sugar-cane, is stated in the dictionary as coarse brown sugar made out of sugar cane. Although sugarcane when the land grows it, what is really grown on the land is sugar in the from of sugarcane and if that sugar is expelled from the cane and it becomes jaggery, it is far too unreasonable for any one to suggest that the agricultural produce grown on the land is something very much different from jaggery which is manufactured by that process. So jaggery is, in our opinion, agricultural produce within the meaning of the definition of agriculture produce which the new Act incorporates. It not only falls within the main definition for the reason that sugarcane is agricultural produce as it is ordinarily understood, both in the popular sense, as well as by men of business and in the commercial world, but also for the reason that the inclusive part of the definition says that all produce whether processed or not of agriculture, animal husbandry or horticulture is also agricultural produce. Even if sugarcane can be understood as some cane which is grown on land, then it will be a product of horticulture and if jaggery is the produce of some kind of processing and jaggery which gets so manufactured by processing is a product of horticulture, as the case maybe, it is agricultural produce within the meaning of the definition in the new Act.
These observations also lend support to our view that jaggery is ''agricultural produce'' which is processed and therefore constitute; ''agricultural produce'' within the meaning of section 2 (1) of the Act.
Sri E. Subramanyam, relies upon the rulings in Vidyanatha Aiyer v. State of Madras 5 (1954) S.T.C.P. 94 where it was held that jaggery was not agricultural produce. But this conclusion is based on the language of section 2 (i) of the Madras General Sales Tax Act which exempted only sales of agricultural produce for the purpose of Sales Tax Act. In view of the language of section 2 (i) of the Act, the learned judges came to the conclusion that exemption applied only to sales of agricultural produce as such and not what agricultural produce was converted into by a process of manufacturing. Therefore that case does not held the appellants case. In the instant cases, agricultural produce as defined in the Act takes in not only the agricultural produce as such but also agricultural produce which is processed or unprocessed.
In Anakapalle Co-Operative Marketing Society v. State of Andhra Pradesh XVIII (1966) S.T.C. 328, the learned judges took the same view as in Vidyanatha v. State of Madras 5 (1954) S.T.C.P. 94. That case also related to the question whether jaggery was ''agricultural produce'' or not for the purpose of Madras General Sales Tax Act and therefore that case does not advance the case of the appellant.
The learned counsel then invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Chimanlal Premchand Vs. The State of Bombay, where their Lordships held that:
Cotton, ginned or unginned, continues to be cotton till it looses its identity by some chemical or industrial process. So long as the identity is not lost, the fact that it is pressed into bales or packed otherwise does not make it any the less cotton specified in the schedule to the Act. In this view, the pressed cotton in bales is an agricultural produce as defined in section 2 (i) of the Act, and therefore, a person doing business in the said produce without licence contravenes Rule 65 of the Rules.
Relying on this ruling, it is contended by Sri Subrahmanyam, that where there is loss of identity of agricultural produce by chemical or industrial process, it ceases to be ''agricultural produce'' and that sugarcane juice which is converted into jaggery by the process of boiling should be held to have lost its identity as agricultural produce.
We have already held that the mere conversion of juice by boiling and allowing it to solidify, would not completely after its nature or character as agricultural produce and that jaggery is a processed sugarcane juice and therefore is "agricultural produce" which is processed in which case it falls within the definition of ''agricultural produce'' u/s 2 (i) of the Act. For all the foregoing reasons, we hold that jaggery falls within the definition of ''agricultural produce'' u/s 2(i) of the Act, and that the impugned notifications made by the Government and the Market Committees are intra vires and valid.
In W. A. Nos. 416 and 417/1973, a contention was sought to be raised by the appellants that the Marked Committees were not providing any amenities or facilities and there was no service render by them and therefore they were not competent to levy and demand any fees.
In the Counter affidavit filed by the respondents, they have set out various amenities and facilities provided by the Market Committees. This contention of the appellants is based on disputed facts and cannot be properly investigated in a writ petition. It is for the appellants to agitate the said question in a properly framed suit. In this view, we are not inclined to express any opinion on the merits of this contention. In the result, all the Writ Appeals fail and they are dismissed with costs. Advocates fee Rs. 200/- in each to be shared by the respondents I and II in each of the Writ Appeals.