TMI Blog2002 (3) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ets Act, 1960 has not been issued in the present case. No hesitation in concluding that the entire field of regulating the purchase and sale of paddy or the rice produced out of the paddy is not covered under the Control Order. The provisions of the Marketing Act do not trench up the field covered by the Control Order. There is no inconsistency between the Control Order and the Marketing Act. They do not cover the same field and therefore the question of any inconsistency, repugnancy or the Marketing Act being ineffectual in terms of section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act in view of the Control Order issued under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act would not arise - Civil Appeal No. 1859-1864 of 2002, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 194, 196, 437 of 1999, W.P. Nos. 44450, 41334, 41335, 41346 of 1993, 37936, 37937 of 1995 - - - Dated:- 6-3-2002 - KHARE V.N. AND ASHOK BHAN JJ. Senior Advocates: S.S. Javali and Rakesh Dwivedi for the parties. Other Advocates: E.C. Vidya Sagar, B.K. Choudhary, B.R. Satenahalli, B.G. Sridharan, G.V. Chandrasekhar (for P.P. Singh), N. Ganpathy, Sanjay R. Hegde and Satya Mitra for the parties. -------------------------------------- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Court in Food Corporation of India v. State of Kerala See [1997] 105 STC 4. (1997) 3 SCC 410, wherein it has been held that sale of rice by the rice millers to the State Government or its agents by virtue of Procurement Order is a sale. On the second point it was held that paddy and rice being two different commodities the market fee could be levied on paddy as well as rice. On the similar grounds question number (3) was decided against the dealers. On question number (4) the High Court opined that the provisions of the Marketing Act were not repugnant to the Control Order. For this reliance was placed on certain decisions of the same High Court. 5.. Aggrieved by the judgment of the division Bench the present appeals have been filed. Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 196, 194 and 437 of 1999, which were filed in this Court, were ordered to be listed with these appeals. The point being the same, these writ petitions are taken up and disposed of with the appeals. The facts are being referred from the appeals. 6.. Counsel for the appellants addressed arguments on question number (4) only. The other points were given up and no arguments were addressed. 7.. Relying upon the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raphs of this judgment it was contended that the provisions of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981, covered the entire field on the marketing of sugarcane as well as the manufactured items whereas in the present case the Control Order did not cover the entire field of the marketing of the rice. That the Marketing Act was not repugnant to the Control Order. That the Control Order did not cover the field which was sought to be covered by the Marketing Act. It dealt with separate and distinct matters which were not covered under the Control Order and therefore the question of its being repugnant or inconsistent with the Control Order thereby making it ineffectual in terms of section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 did not arise. That the Bench had passed the order regarding sugarcane or manufactured items therefrom on the peculiar provisions of the two Acts involved in the said case whereas regarding all other products, i.e., wheat products-atta, maida, suji, bran, etc., vegetable oil, rice-milling, milk and milk products, and tea the levy of market fee was upheld. We find considerable force in the submissions made by the counsel for the responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be subject to any other legislation under entry 33 of the Concurrent List. Since the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981 had been enacted in exercise of its legislative powers under entry 33 of the Concurrent List therefore the field covered by the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981, would obviously remain exclusively governed by the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981, and to the extent the latter Act carves out an independent field for its operation, the sweep of the general field covered by the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, which covered all types of agricultural produce, would pro tanto get excluded qua sugarcane and the products prepared out of it. 11.. After considering the provisions of the Bihar Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1981, in extenso from paragraphs 18 to 45 it was concluded: "The aforesaid provisions of the Sugarcane Act leave no room for doubt that the Bihar Legislature in its wisdom has enacted a special machinery for regulating the purchase and sale of sugarcane to be supplied to sugar factories for manufacturing sugar out of the sugarcan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, and since the sugarcane mills were exempted from applicability of the provisions of section 15 it was held: "That the State Government had given up its erstwhile intention of regulating the sale and purchase of sugarcane as per section 3(1) of the Market Act which could not survive any further after the issuance of the aforesaid exemption notification." 16.. Thereafter, the Bench considered the effect of Sugarcane (Control) Order, 1966, issued by the Central Government under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. After referring to the provisions of the Control Order in extenso from paragraphs 50 to 60 it was concluded in paragraph 64: "The facts of the present case project even a stronger situation, so far as the appellants are concerned. Whatever shortfall is found in the Sugar (Control) Order has been supplemented by the Sugarcane Act by the Bihar legislation itself. The reasoning which appealed to the Karnataka High Court in the above judgment rendered in the absence of a separate complementary legislation by the Karnataka Legislature gets further strengthened in the light of the Sugarcane Act in the present case. Consequentl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, would have no applicability. 18.. Similarly, for sale of sugar it was held that in view of the Sugar (Control) Order, 1966; Sugar (Packing and Marking) Order, 1970; Sugar (Restriction on Movement) Order, 1970 and Levy Sugar Supply (Control) Order, 1979 the market fee could not be levied under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, as this field was covered under the four orders framed under section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act pertaining to sugar. 19.. Thereafter, the Bench considered the levy of market fee on vegetable oils from paragraphs 122 to 124; rice milling industries from paragraphs 125 to 134; milk and milk products from paragraphs 135 to 140 and tea matters from paragraph 141 onwards and held that the market fee could be levied under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 because the Control Orders issued under the Essential Commodities Act did not cover the entire field. 20.. Adverting to the facts of the present case we find that the Karnataka Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984, has been issued with the object of procurement of rice is to see that rice is made available for public distribution and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Control Order deals with the compulsory acquisition of 1/3rd of rice of each variety produced by a miller at a purchase price fixed by the Government. It requires the miller to supply to the Government or its purchase agent and deliver the procured rice at a notified place. It does not deal with the sale and purchase of the remaining 2/3rd rice except that the miller is not permitted to remove the stock of rice from the mill premises without delivery of rice to the Government or its purchase agent and without obtaining a release certificate required to be taken under clause 8 of the said Order. It does not deal with the marketing or the facilities to be provided to the grower, seller and purchaser of paddy in the market area or to the seller or purchaser of the rice. The Control Order is thus limited in operation. The Marketing Act provides for the regulation of marketing of agricultural produce (which rice is) and the establishment and administration of markets for agricultural produce and matters connected therewith in the State of Karnataka. The Marketing Act deals with the entire gamut of marketing of agricultural produce starting from the establishment of the market committee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
