TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 443X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the Full Bench decision in Kommisetty Nammalwar [ 2009 (5) TMI 1021 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] while referring to the judgments of this Court in Park Leather Industry (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. [ 2001 (2) TMI 893 - SUPREME COURT] ]; Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan [ 1990 (3) TMI 323 - SUPREME COURT ]; Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar v. State of U.P. [ 1980 (3) TMI 262 - SUPREME COURT ] and Smt. Sita Devi (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Bihar Ors. [ 1994 (11) TMI 439 - SUPREME COURT ] held that all animal husbandry products would fall within the meaning of products of livestock as defined under Section 2 (xv) of the Act. Further, the majority decision has also held that the inclusion of ghee as a livestock product cannot be faulted merely because it is derived from another dairy product. It was observed by the High Court that even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk, which is a product of livestock, it would still be a product of a product of livestock . The second argument of the appellant that the procedure given under Section 3 of the Act has not been followed, is also not correct. There is a basic difference between the notification which has to be made under Section 3 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent : Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Sahil Bhalaik, AOR Mr. Tushar Giri, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Anil Khanna, Adv. Mr. Sewa Singh, Adv. Ms. Gulshan Jahan, Adv. JUDGMENT SUDHANSHU DHULIA, J. 1. Two questions arise in these appeals for our determination. The first question is whether ghee is a product of livestock under the provisions of The Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) and the second would be whether the Government notification (G.O. Ms. No.286 dated 05.07.1994), which inter alia notifies ghee as one of the products of livestock for the purpose of regulation of purchase and sale of ghee in all notified market areas was published after due compliance of the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act? 2. In the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh, the above Act was brought with the purpose to consolidate and amend the laws regulating the purchase and sale of agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock, along with establishment of markets in connection therewith. The aim was to secure effective and remunerative price of commodities by bringing producers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there will be a larger physical unit called notified area wherein the market committee shall establish markets and thereafter, through a notification u/s 4 (4), the Govt. declares a notified market area in respect of the notified products. 5. In the year 1968, the State of Andhra Pradesh had issued a notification u/s 3 (3) of the Act declaring notified areas in the State where ghee was included in Schedule II of the said notification as a livestock product. Thereafter, in the year 1971, a notification u/s 4 (4) was published, which declared the notified market areas in respect of the respondentcommittee, i.e. Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur and ghee was specified as a notified product. However, in 1972 the 1971 notification was amended and ghee was taken out of the list of notified livestock products in respect of the respondent-committee, and it remained so for a considerable period of time. We must clarify here that both these notifications i.e., notifications of 1971 1972 were issued u/s 4 (4) of the Act and not u/s 3 (3) of the Act. 6. Later, on 15.07.1994, the Govt of A.P. published a general notification directing all the notified markets within the State of AP to regu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that ghee is indeed a product of livestock is logically sound. Livestock has been defined under Section 2(v) of the Act, where Cows and buffalos are the livestock. Undisputedly, ghee is a product of milk which is a product of the livestock. The majority opinion of the Full Bench decision in Kommisetty Nammalwar (supra) while referring to the judgments of this Court in Park Leather Industry (P) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2001) 3 SCC 135; Kishan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1990 SC 2269; Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar v. State of U.P. 1980 Supp (1) SCC 27 and Smt. Sita Devi (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Bihar Ors. 1995 Supp (1) SSC 670 held that all animal husbandry products would fall within the meaning of products of livestock as defined under Section 2 (xv) of the Act. Further, the majority decision has also held that the inclusion of ghee as a livestock product cannot be faulted merely because it is derived from another dairy product. It was observed by the High Court that even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk, which is a product of livestock, it would still be a product of a product of livestock . The relevant portion of the judgment of the High Court is as under: Scientifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and would come under the definition of hides and skins . The same reasoning has been adopted by the Full Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court that Ghee is derived out of milk by undergoing a process, yet it still remains a product of livestock, for the purposes of the Act and payment of market fee . We are absolutely in agreement with the above reasoning. 11. The second argument of the appellant that the procedure given under Section 3 of the Act has not been followed, is also not correct. There is a basic difference between the notification which has to be made under Section 3 of the Act and the notification which has to be made subsequently under Section 4 of the Act. What has to be done under Section 3 is a onetime measure where the Government notifies an area where purchase and sale of agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock can be made. This is a one-time exercise. What happens under Section 4 of the Act is that the Govt. declares the notified market area in respect of any notified product (products which have already been notified under section 3 of the Act). A perusal of Sections 3 and 4 of the Act clearly shows that whereas a draft notification is mandatory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... may, by its corporate name, sue and be sued: Provided that any market committee functioning immediately before such constitution in respect of a notified area abolished under the proviso to clause(c) of subsection (4) of section 3 shall stand abolished. (1-A) Any notification made under sub-section (1) for the constitution of a new market committee in respect of any new notified are declared under clause (c) of sub-section (4) of section 3, may contain such supplemental, incidental and consequential provisions, including provisions as to the composition of the new market committee or new and existing market committees and the apportionment of the assets and liabilities between the market committees affected thereby]. [(1-B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 3 and in subsection (1) and (1-A) of Section 4 of the Act, the Government, may, by notification, also constitution a separate market committee to a special market in a notified area.] (2) It shall be the duty of the market committee to enforce the provisions of this Act and rules and byelaws made thereunder in the notified area (3) (a) Every market committee shall establish in the notified area excluding the schedul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Full Bench concluded that procedural compliance is only necessary when there is a declaration or later a merger/de-merger of a notified area and there is no requirement of following any particular procedure while issuing a notification under Section 4 (4) of the Act notifying/de-notifying any already notified products for the purpose of regulation by any respective Agricultural Market Committee (AMC). In other words, a prior hearing or prior publication of the draft notification is not a requirement under Section 4 of the Act, since the notification of the year 1994 is a notification under Section 4 and not of Section 3 of the Act. Therefore, the argument that the process under Section 3, has not been followed is totally misconceived. No prior process was required to be followed as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act for working the scheme under Section 4 of the Act. Consequently, we hold that there was nothing wrong in the 1994 notification and the challenge to the notification has rightly been turned down by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. 12. We are now left with one more issue related to the market fee. Since the 1994 notification had an effect which made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
