AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Chandrashekhar, J.—These four appeals are from the common order of Jagannatha Shetty, J., in Writ Petitions Nos. 748, 1078, 1168 and 1998 of 1974, The respondents therein, namely, the Secretary, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Mangalore, and the Chief Marketing Officer, Karnataka State, are the appellants and the writ petitioners (here in after referred to as the petitioners) are the respondents in these appeals.
The petitioners are dealers in agricultural produce. In the writ petitions they had prayed for issue of writs in the nature of Mandamus directing the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Mangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Market Committee) to refrain from demanding licence fee and market fee from them in respect of the agricultural produce specified in the Notification of the Government dated 8-6-1973. The learned single judge allowed writ petitions and issued writs directing the Market Committee to forbear from demanding licence fee and market fee from petitioners in respect of the agricultural produce specified in the aforesaid Notification (dated 8-6-1973) until a fresh notification was issued u/s 6(2)(b) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
In the district of South Kanara which was in Madras State before reorganization of States, regulation of marketing of agricultural produce was governed by the Madras Commercial Crops Marketing Act, 1943 (hereinafter referred to as the Madras Act). Even after reorganisation of States, that Act continued to be in force in that District by virtue of Section 119 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. A uniform legislation regulating marketing of agricultural produce in the new State of Mysore (Karnataka) was brought about by the Act which came into force on 1-5-1968. Section 154 of the Act repealed the Madras Act and, other corresponding enactments in force in different areas of the State, regulating marketing of agricultural produce. But, the proviso to that section has saved the rules and notifications issued under the repealed enactments until superseded by rules and notifications made or issued under the Act.
Section 4 of the Madras Act pro-vided that the Government might, by notification, declare areas specified therein to be the ''notified area'' for the purposes of that Act in respect of commercial crops specified in such notification.
By its notification dated 3-11-1949, the Government of Madras declared that the entire district of South Kanara shall be the notified area for the purposes of that Act in respect of cocoanut and its by-products and arecanuts. u/s 154 of the Act, the aforesaid notification issued by the Government of Madras, is deemed to have been issued under the corresponding provisions, namely Section 4 of the Act.
Sub-section (19) of Section 2 of the Act defines ''market area'' as any area declared to be a market area u/s 4.
Sub-section (18) of Section 2 of the Act defines ''market'' as any notified area declared or deemed to be declared to be a market under Sub-section (2) of Section 6.
Sub-section (23) of Section 2 of the Act defines ''market yard'' as a specified place declared or deemed to be declared to be a market yard under Sub-section (2) of Section 6.
Section 3 of the Act provides that the State Government may issue a notification declaring its intention of regulating marketing of specified agricultural produce in a specified area and that the Government shall consider any objections or suggestions in respect of that proposal, which may be received within the period specified in such notification.
Section 4 of the Act provides that after the expiry of the period specified in the notification issued u/s 3 and after considering such objections and suggestions as may be received in time, the State Government may, by another notification, declare the area specified in the notification issued u/s 3 or any portion thereof to be a market area and that the marketing of all or any of the agricultural produce specified in the notification issued u/s 3, shall be regulated under the Act in such market area.
Section 5 of the Act provides that the State Government may, after following procedure specified in Sections 3 and 4, at any time by notification, exclude from any market area or include therein an additional area, or may declare that the regulation of the marketing of any agricultural produce in any market area shall cease, or that the marketing of any agricultural produce (hitherto not regulated) shall be regulated in such market area.
Sub-section (1) (a) of Section 6 of the Act provides, inter alia, that for every market area there shall be a market and that for every market there shall be market yard.
Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Act provides that as soon as possible after the issue of a notification u/s 4, the Chief Marketing Officer shall, by a notification, declare any specified area in the market area to be a market.
Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 6 reads:
"The Chief Marketing Officer shall by a notification under Clause (a) also declare a specified place in the market to be a market yard for the regulated marketing of the notified agricultural produce specified in the notification. He may also by the same notification or notifications declare (any other specified place or places) as the case may be, in the market Jo be a market sub-yard or sub-yards for the regulated marketing of the notified agricultural produce specified in the notification."
The Chief Marketing Officer, by his notification dated 17-12-1968, issued in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Act, declared-
(i) the area within the Municipal limits of Mangalore City in the market area of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Mangalore, shall be the market for the said market area; and
(ii) the locality within the boundaries specified in that notification shall be the market yard for the regulated marketing of the notified agricultural produce in respect of the said area.
In exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Act, the State Government, by its notification dated 8-6-1973, declared that with effect from 1-7-1973 the marketing of paddy, rice, cashewnut, ginger, pepper, jaggery, chillis, bananas, sweet potatoes, mangoes and livestock, shall be regulated in addition to the agricultural produce already regulated in the market area of the district of South Kanara.
In the writ petitions, the petitioners contended that after the issue of the aforesaid notification dated 8-6-1973 by the Slate Government, the Chief Marketing Officer had not issued any notification declaring any specified area as market and any specified place as market yard in respect of the new items of agricultural produce specified in the aforesaid notification and that in the absence of such fresh declaration of the market and the market yard by the Chief Marketing Officer, no licence fee or market fee could be demanded from the petitioners in respect of the new items of agricultural produce specified in the aforesaid notification dated 8-6-1973. In other words, the contention of the petitioners was that after Government issues the notification dated 8-6-1973 u/s 5 of the Act adding new items of agricultural commodities for regulation of marketing in the market area, the earlier notification issued by the Chief Marketing Officer declaring the market and the market yard shall not apply to those new items of agricultural produce specified by the Government in its notification dated 8-6-1973 and that in respect of those new items the Chief Marketing Officer should issue a fresh notification declaring the market and the market yard.
The above contention of the petitioners found favour with the learned single Judge who held that there is no presumption that all items of agricultural produce notified from time to time would be marketed in the same market yard, that there may be different market yards for different items of agricultural produce and that therefore, even if any additional notified item of agricultural produce is intended to be marketed in the already existing market yard, a fresh notification as required u/s 6(2)(b) of the Act, is absolutely necessary.
The correctness of the above view of the learned single Judge, was contested by the learned Government Pleader who appeared for the appellants, while Mr. K. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the respondents, argued in support of the view taken by the learned single Judge.
There is nothing in Clause (a) of Section 6(2) which expressly provides that when any items of agricultural produce hitherto not regulated, is by a notification u/s 5, added to the existing items of notified agricultural produce, the earlier notification issued by the Chief Marketing Officer declaring any specified area in the market area to be a market, will not apply to such new items of agricultural produce and that the Chief Marketing Officer should issue a fresh notification u/s 6(2)(a) declaring the market in respect of such new items of agricultural produce. Likewise, there is nothing in Section 6(2)(b) of the Act which expressly provides that when such new items of agricultural produce are so added to the existing ones, the earlier notification issued by the Chief Marketing Officer declaring any specified place in the market to be the market yard, will not apply to such new items of agricultural produce and that the Chief Marketing Officer should issue a fresh notification u/s 6(2)(b) declaring the market yard in respect of such new items of agricultural produce. As the expression ''notified agricultural produce'' occurring in Clause (b) of Section 6(2), has been defined in Section 2(28) of the Act as to mean not only agricultural produce which the State Gov-eminent has declared as such by a notification u/s 4 but also agricultural produce so declared by a notification u/s 5, there is no reason why a market once declared u/s 6(2)(a) and the market yard once declared u/s 6(2)(b) should not be applicable to new items of agricultural produce added from time to time to the existing items of notified agricultural produce, by means of notifications issued u/s 5 of the Act. Hence, it is permissible for the Market Committee to regulate the marketing of such new items of agricultural produce also in the existing market yard and: to demand market fee from buyers of such new items of agricultural produce in the existing market yard and to require payment of licence fee by traders, commission agents and brokers who want to operate in the existing market in relation to such new items of agricultural produce.
However, Mr. Srinivasan strongly relied on certain observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Venkateswara Traders v. The Administrator, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Chickballapur (1972 (1) Mys LJ 35). There, the question that arose for decision was whether it is necessary for the Chief Marketing Officer to issue a fresh notification specifying any area in the market area to be a market and any place in the market to be a market yard, whenever there is an alteration of a market area made u/s 5 of the Act. Dealing with that question, their Lordships observed that (at page 37):
"When the alteration of a market area made u/s 5 is deemed to be a declaration made u/s 4 of the Act, it follows that it is obligatory on the Chief Marketing Officer to specify any area in the market area to be a market and further to specify any place in the market to be a market yard. The market and market yard notified for the original market area and before the alteration declared u/s 5, cannot be regarded as the market or the market yard for the new market area declared u/s 5."
On the basis of the above observations, Mr. Srinivasan argued that since alteration of the market area and addition or deletion of items of agricultural produce have both to be made by a notification u/s 5 of the Act, the reasoning of the Division Bench in Venkateshwara Traders'' case, while dealing with alteration of the market area, is equally applicable to addition of new items of agricultural produce for regulation of marketing, made u/s 5 of the Act.
With great respect to their Lordships who decided Venkateshwara Traders'' case, we doubt the correctness of the view expressed by them that an alteration of the market area brought about by issuing a notification u/s 5 of the Act, would necessitate the issue of a fresh notification by the Chief Marketing Officer u/s 6(2) of the Act specifying the market and the market yard. In the present cases as we are dealing with the effect of addition of new items of agricultural produce, we do not consider it necessary to refer to a Full Bench the question whether the decision in Venkateshwara Traders'' case lays down the law correctly.
Moreover, the definition of the expression ''notified agricultural produce'' is wide enough to include not only items of agricultural produce which were originally notified u/s 4 of the Act (or the corresponding provision in any of the repealed enactments), but also items of agricultural produce which may be subsequently added by a notification or notifications u/s 5 of the Act. Hence, there appears to be some difference between the effect of an alteration of the market area by issue of a notification u/s 5 of the Act and the effect of addition of new items of agricultural produce (the marketing of which is to be regulated in the market area) by issue of a notification or notifications u/s 5 of the Act. On this ground the decision in Venkateshwara Traders'' case is also distinguishable.
Mr. Srinivasan next contended that the words ''specified in the notification'' occurring after the words ''notified agricultural produce'' in Clause (b) of Section 6(2) of the Act, should be understood as having reference to the notification issued u/s 4 of the Act and that hence whenever there is an addition to the items of agricultural produce notified u/s 4 of the Act, there should be a fresh notification by the Chief Marketing Officer declaring the market yard in respect of such new items of agricultural produce.
We arc unable to accept the contention of Mr. Srinivasan that the words "specified in the notification" occurring in Clause (b) of Section 6(2) of the Act, have reference to a notification u/s 4 of the Act. Though the language of Clause (b) of Section 6(2) is not happy, the words "specified in the notification" in the clause, have, in our opinion, reference to the notification u/s 6(2)(a) and not to the notification u/s 4 of the Act.
Lastly, it was contended by Mr. Srinivasan that in the market and the market yard specified by the Chief Marketing Officer by his notification dated 16-12-1968 regulation of marketing can be done in regard to only those items of agricultural produce which had been notified u/s 4 of the Act prior to 16-12-1968 and not those items of agricultural produce which were subsequently added by the Government by its notification dated 8-6-1973 issued u/s 5 of the Act.
As stated earlier, the expression ''notified agricultural produce'' has been defined in Section 2(28) of the Act as any agricultural produce which the State Government has, by notification issued under Sections 4 and 5, declared as an agricultural produce, the marketing of which shall be regulated in the market area. The area declared as market and the place declared as market-yard u/s 6(2) of the Act, can be market and the market yard for regulated marketing of any new items of agricultural produce declared as such, whether the notification u/s 5 of the Act so declaring those items, has been issued prior to, or subsequent to, the declaration of the market and the market yard u/s 6(2) of the Act. There is nothing in Section 6(2)(b) which restricts the scope of regulated marketing in the market yard, to only those items of agricultural produce which had been declared as such u/s 5 prior to the declaration of a specified place as the market yard.
We are unable to agree with the view of the learned single Judge that after the issue of the notification dated 8-6-1973 u/s 5 of the Act adding new items of agricultural produce as notified agricultural produce, there should be a fresh notification u/s 6(2) of the Act declaring the market and the market yard in respect of those new items of agricultural produce for the purpose of regulation of marketing of those new items.
In the result, we allow these appeals, reverse the common order of the learned single Judge, dated 22-1-1975, in Writ Petitions Nos. 748, 1078, 1168 and 1998 of 1974 and dismiss those writ petitions.
Mr. Srinivasan requested that the respondents (writ petitioners) he granted 3 months'' time to pay the arrears of market fee and license fee upto-date. We grant to the respondents (writ petitioners) three months'' time from to-day to pay such arrears of market fee and license fee.
In the circumstances of the cases, parties shall bear their own costs both in these appeals and in the writ petitions.
Let copies of this Judgment be sent forthwith to appellant-1 (the Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee. Managalore) Mangalore) and to the learned Government Advocate.
Appeals allowed.