{"id":75965,"date":"1984-09-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1984-09-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984"},"modified":"2019-03-25T08:53:54","modified_gmt":"2019-03-25T03:23:54","slug":"krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984","title":{"rendered":"Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti … vs Ganga Dal Mill And Co. And Ors. Etc on 25 September, 1984"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti … vs Ganga Dal Mill And Co. And Ors. Etc on 25 September, 1984<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 1870, \t\t 1985 SCR (1) 787<\/div>\n
Author: D Desai<\/div>\n
Bench: Desai, D.A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI KANPUR, ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nGANGA DAL MILL AND CO. AND ORS. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT25\/09\/1984\n\nBENCH:\nDESAI, D.A.\nBENCH:\nDESAI, D.A.\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\nKHALID, V. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1984 AIR 1870\t\t  1985 SCR  (1) 787\n 1984 SCC  (4) 516\t  1984 SCALE  (2)518\n\n\nACT:\n     U.P. Krishi  Utpadan Mandi\t Adhiniyam 1964, Secs. 2 (a)\nand 2  (t) & State Government Notification dated January 20,\n1982.\n     Legume'  notified-'Specified  agricultural\t Produce-Dwi\nDaliya Utpadan-Whether\tcomprehends both  the whole grain of\nlegumes and its split part that is dal.\n     Words and\tPhrases 'Legume'-'Dwi  Daliya Utpadan'-'Such\nitems of  produce of  agriculture as  are specified  in\t the\nSchedule'- Meaning  of Secs.  2 (a)  and 2  (t) U.P.  Krishi\nUtpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964.\n     Practice and  Procedure:  Disputed\t question  of  fact-\nDecision by Supreme Court-When permissible.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The Appellant-Market Committee levied market fee on the\ntransaction of\tsale  of  dal  of  various  legumes  by\t the\nrespondents,  on   the\tground\tthat  they  were  'specified\nagricultural  produce'\tand  the  transactions\tof  sale  in\nrespect of  them by the respondents in the Market Area would\nbe exigible to the levy of market fee.\n     The respondents  opposed the  aforesaid levy contending\nthat they  were manufacturing  in  their  factory  dal\tfrom\nvarious legumes\t and  therefore,  not  only  they  were\t not\nproducers of  agricultural commodities,\t but in\t view of the\ndescription of\tlegumes set  out in the Schedule of the U.P.\nKrishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964, the dal of such legumes\nin the\tProcessed form\twas  not  a  specified\tagricultural\nproduce and  therefore, a  transaction of sale in respect of\nthem at\t the hands of the respondents even if it takes place\nin the\tMarket Area would not permit the Market Committee to\nlevy market  fee on  such transaction and that they were not\nliable to buy the same. It was further contended that unless\nthe agricultural  produce specified  in the  Schedule to the\nAct was\t notified as  a specified  agricultural\t produce  in\nrespect of  a particular  Market Area,\tthe Market Committee\nhaving jurisdiction in the Market Area would not be entitled\nto levy\t market fee  on the  transaction  of  sale  of\tsuch\nagricultural produce.\n     The respondents  approached the  High Court  by  filing\nwrit petitions\tunder Art.  226 contending  that the  Market\nCommittee continue to levy fee on the transaction of dal and\nthat it had no authority to do so.\n788\nThe High  Court held  that lengume in its split form was not\nthe same  thing as  legume specified  in  the  Schedule\t and\ntherefore, in  the absence of a specification, dal of any of\nthe legumes  enumerated in the Schedule cannot be said to be\nspecified   agricultural    produce   and   therefore,\t any\ntransaction of\tsale in\t respect of them was not exigible to\nthe levy of market fee.\n     During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions the\nState Government  issued in  exercise of the power conferred\nby Sec.\t 4A of\tthe Act,  a notification dated 20th January,\n1982 which  substituted the  split form\t of legume  for\t the\nlegume whole grain as specified agricultural produce.\n     After the\tissuance of  the aforesaid  notification,  a\nfresh batch  of writ  petitions were  filed challenging both\nthe validity  of the notification as also the eligibility of\nthe Market  Committee to  levy market fee on the transaction\nof sale\t in respect  of dal  of legumes. It was contended in\nthe writ  petitions that  merely amending  or adding  to the\nlist of\t agricultural produce  set out\tin the\tSchedule  by\nitself without\tany thing  more would  not enable the Market\nCommittee  to\tlevy  market   fee  on\t the  sale  of\tsuch\nagricultural produce  because before  levying market fee the\nagricultural  produce\thas  to\t be  notified  as  specified\nagricultural produce  by issuing either a notification under\nSec. 6\tor addition  or alteration  in exercise of the power\nunder Sec. 8 of the Act. It was further contended that after\nthe amendment  of the Schedule by the impugned notification,\nfresh notification  either under  Sec 6 or Sec. 8 having not\nbeen issued,  the agricultural\tproduce\t introduced  in\t the\nSchedule namely,  dal of  various legumes  have\t not  become\nspecified agricultural\tproduce and  therefore any  sale  in\nrespect of such agricultural produce even in the Market Area\nwill not  enable the market Committee to levy market fee nor\nwould it  oblige persons  or parties  to the  transaction of\nsale to pay the same.\n     The aforesaid  contentions found  favour with  the High\nCourt which  allowed the  writ\tpetitions  and\tquashed\t the\nnotice issued by the Market Committee raising the demand for\nmarket fee.  It further\t held  that  till  the\tagricultural\nproduce under  the heading  'II\t Legumes'  set\tout  in\t the\nSchedule  since\t the  amendment\t of  January  20,  1982\t are\nnotified  as  specified\t agricultural  produce,\t the  Market\nCommittee was not entitled to levy and collect market fee on\nthe transaction of sale of such agricultural produce.\n     In the appeals to this Court, on the question : whether\nlegume,\t whole\t grain\twere   notified\t  as   a   specified\nagricultural produce within the meaning of the expression in\nSec. 2\t(t) of\tthe U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964\nwould also comprehend its split folds or parts, commercially\ncalled dal  so as  to enable the Mandi Samiti to levy market\nfee under  Sec. 17  of the Act on the transaction of sale of\ndal of legumes specified in the Schedule to the Act.\n     Allowing the Appeals:\n^\n     HELD :  1. The  High Court was in error in holding that\nthe legume  whole grain\t as set out in the Schedule does not\ninclude its split form i.e. dal and therefore, no market fee\nwas leviable  on the  transaction of sale of legume in split\nform. [805D]\n789\n     Rumesh Chandra etc. v. State of U.P. etc., [1980] 3 SCR\n109, Kawai  Krishna Puri  & Anr.  v. State of Punjab & Ors.,\n[1979]\t3  SCR\t1217  and  State  of  Gujarat  v.  Sakarwala\nBrothers, [1967] 19 STC 24, referred to.\n     M\/s Ganesh\t Trading Co.  Karnal etc.  etc. v.  State of\nHaryana &  Anr. etc.,  A.I.R. 1974  S.C. 1362  and Babu\t Ram\nJagdish Kumar & Co. etc. etc. v. State of Punjab & Ors. etc.\netc., [1967] 3 SCR 952, in applicable.\n     Modi Spinning  and Weaving\t Mills Co. Ltd., Modinagar &\nOrs. etc.  v. State  of U.P.  & Anr., [1980] All. L.J. 1137,\nreversed.\n     2. The  entries under  the\t heading  'legumes'  in\t the\nSchedule of  Sec. 2  (a) of  the U.P.  Krishi Utpadan  Mandi\nAdhiniyam 1964 as it stood prior to the amendment of January\n20, 1982  through the  notification  issued  under  Sec\t 4-A\ncomprehend both\t the whole  grain of  legumes and  its split\npart that  is dal.  What was implicit has been made explicit\nand  therefore\tno  fresh  notification\t under\tSec.  8\t was\nnecessary. [798 D-E]\n     3. It  is an  indisputable canon  of construction\tthat\nwhere an  expression is defined in the statute, unless there\nis  anything  repugnant\t in  the  subject  or  context,\t the\nexpression has\tto be  construed as  having the same meaning\nassigned to  it in  the dictionary  clause of  the  statute.\n[798G]\n     4.\t The  definition  of  the  expression  'agricultural\nproduce' as  set out  in Sec.  2 (a)  of the  Act cannot  be\nconstrued by  resort to\t decisions under  entirely different\nstatutes such  as the Sales Tax Laws to find out whether the\nwhole grain  and split\tfolds constitute the same product or\ntwo  different\tand  independent  products  commercially  so\nrecognised. Analysing  the definition  of the  expression it\nwould mean not only those items of produce of agriculture as\nspecified  in\tthe  Schedule  but  will  also\tinclude\t the\nadmixture of two or more of such items as also any such item\nin its processed form. [798 F; H]\n     5. 'Agricultural produce' mean a produce of agriculture\nsuch as\t Gram as  specified in\tthe Schedule  and would also\ninclude Gram in its processed form. Therefore, not only Gram\nis an agricultural produce but Gram in its processed form is\nequally and agricultural produce. [799B]\n     6. When  it is  said in  the definition  'such items of\nproduce of agriculture as are specified in the Schedule', it\nmeans that  not only all those items of agricultural produce\nwhich  are   set  out\tin  the\t  Schedule  will  constitute\nagricultural produce  but also\tthe admixture of two or more\nof such\t items of  produce of  agriculture as set out in the\nSchedule as well as any such items of agriculture produce in\ntheir processed form. [799B-C]\n     7. Legislative enactments in the State of Uttar Pradesh\nare enacted  in the  Hindi language  and  its  official\t and\nauthentic translation in English is primarily simultaneously\npublished. The\tnotification dated  April 11, 1978 specified\nthe legumes  therein enumerated\t as  specified\tagricultural\nproduce for various\n790\nMarket Areas.  The heading  under which\t various legumes are\nenumerated is  'Dwi Daliya Utpadan.' This tongue-twister was\nexplained to  mean that\t legume itself is Dwi Daliya Utpadan\ni.e. the  whole grain  is made of two folds. Ek daliya grain\nis without  a fold.  Dwi Daliya\t is a  grain composed of two\nfolds  and   certainly\tnot   many  folds.   On\t  a   strict\nconstruction, the  two dals i.e. two parts forming the whole\ngrain both  are comprehended  in the  expression 'Dwi Daliya\nUtpadan'. [799G-H; 800A]\n     8.\t While\tenumerating  legumes  in  the  Schedule\t and\nreproduced in  the 1978\t notification to make them specified\nagricultural produce,  the farmers  intended to include both\nthe grain  as a\t whole and its split parts the dal. And when\nthe agricultural  produce enumerated in the Schedule such as\nGram including\tits processed  part  is\t reproduced  in\t the\nnotification as\t Dwi Daliya  Utpadan, the dal of each of the\nlegumes\t therein  mentioned  became  specified\tagricultural\nproduce. [800D-E]\n     In the  instant  case,  it\t cannot\t be  said  that\t the\nrespondents-factory owners  not being agricultural producers\nand not\t being in  search of  any protection  of the  Market\nCommittee could\t not be subjected to the levy of market fee.\nIn fact, the primary object of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi\nAdhiniyam 1964 as far as the State of U.P. was concerned was\nregulation of  sale and\t purchase  of  agricultural  produce\nirrespective  of   the\tcharacter   of\tthe   party  to\t the\ntransaction save  and except  that as set out in sub-clauses\n(1) to\t(4) of\tSec. 17\t (iii) (b).  It is  not\t a  relevant\nconsideration whether the factory owners need any protection\nbut the\t real question\tis whether  people dealing with them\nneed protection. [802F-H]\n     9. Redress\t of a  grievance depending  upon deciding  a\ndisputed question  of fact  cannot be rendered in this Court\nwhen there  is want of a pleading in this behalf and want of\na decision by the High Court on the point.\n     Ramesh Chandra etc. v. State of U.P. etc., [1980] 3 SCR\n104, referred to.\n     Writ Petitions remitted to the High Court for examining\ncontentions other  than those  dealt  with  by\tthis  Court.\n[807E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 10072-
\n73 of 1983, 2283\/84, 10074-76\/83, 2281-82 of 1984, 2284-87 &
\n2525-27 of 1984
\n     Appeals by\t Special leave\tfrom the  Judgment and Order
\ndated the  28th January,  9th September, 20th December, 19th
\nDec. 1983 & 23rd February, 28th March, 1984 of the Allahabad
\nHigh Court  in C.M.W. Nos. 4275, 4523, 10343, 10228 of 1981,
\n6758\/83, 2066\/81,  12388, 12785,  12400, 12874,\t 1470, 6681,
\n1490 of 1983, 68 & 1475 of 1984.\n<\/p>\n
791<\/span><\/p>\n
     A. K.  Sen, R.P.  Bhatt, E.  C. Agarwala & V.K. Pandita
\nfor the Appellants.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Y.S.  Chitale, Y.K.  Jain and P.R. Agarwala for the
\nRespondents in C.A. Nos. 10072-73\/84.\n<\/p>\n
     F.S. Nariman  and D.K.  Garg for  Respondents  in\tCAs.
\n2286, 3919 & 5342\/84.\n<\/p>\n
     Shanti Bhushan  and Pankaj\t Kalra for Respondent in CA.
\n2283\/84.\n<\/p>\n
     S.N. Kacker,  R.K.\t Jain,\tSuman  Kapur,  Ms.  Sangeeta
\nAgarwal and P.K. Jain, for Respondents in CA. 10076\/84.\n<\/p>\n
     N.C. Talukdar  and Ms.  Maya Rao for RR. in CA. 2581 of
\n1984.\n<\/p>\n
     Sudama Jha and Ms. Maya Rao for RR. in CA. 2525\/84.
\n     H.K. Puri for Respondent in CAs. 10074-75\/83.
\n     Mrs. Sobha Dikshit for the State of U.P.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     DESAI, J.\tWhether the  whole includes the parts is the
\ncore question. Whether legume, whole grain, when notified as
\na ‘specified agricultural produce’ within the meaning of the
\nexpression in  Sec. 2(t)  of the  U.P. Krishi  Utpadan Mandi
\nAdhiniyam, 1964\t (‘Act’ for short) would also comprehend its
\nsplit folds  or parts,\tcommercially called  dal  so  as  to
\nenable Mandi  Samiti (Market  Committee for  convenience  of
\nreference) to  levy market  fee under  Sec. 17 of the Act on
\nthe transaction\t of sale  of dal of legumes specified in the
\nschedule to the Act, is the narrow question that falls to be
\ndetermined in this group of appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     Appellant Market  Committee levied\t market fee  on\t the
\ntransaction of\tsale  of  dal  of  various  legumes  by\t the
\nrespondents, asserting that they were specified agricultural
\nproduce and  the transactions  of sale in respect of them by
\nthe respondents in the Market Area
\n792<\/span>
\nwould be exigible to the levy of market fee. The respondents
\ncontended that\tthey were manufacturing in their factory dal
\nfrom various  legumes and  therefore, not only they were not
\nproducers of  agricultural commodity  but  in  view  of\t the
\ndescription of\tlegumes set  out in the Schedule, the dal of
\nsuch legumes  in the  processed\t form  is  not\ta  specified
\nagricultural produce and therefore, a transaction of sale in
\nrespect of  them at  the hands of the respondents even if it
\ntakes  place  in  the  Market  Area  would  not\t permit\t the
\nappellant to  levy market  fee on  such transaction and they
\nwere not  liable to  pay the  same. The\t respondents contend
\nthat  unless  the  agricultural\t produce  specified  in\t the
\nSchedule to  the Act is notified as a specified agricultural
\nproduce in  respect of\ta particular Market Area, the Market
\nCommittee having jurisdiction in the Market Area will not be
\nentitled to  levy market  fee on  the transaction of sale of
\nsuch agricultural  produce. In\tshort they  say that even if
\nlegumes set  out in  the Schedule are specified agricultural
\nproduce, the  dal processed  therefrom in  the factory could
\nnot become  specified agricultural  produce unless  it is so
\nspecified  and\t therefore,  the  Market  Committee  had  no
\nauthority to  levy market  fee on the transaction of sale of
\ndal. The  respondents approached the High Court of Allahabad
\nby filing  writ petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution
\nraising myriad\tcontentions including  the one as herein set
\nout.\n<\/p>\n
     The High  Court by\t its judgment dated January 28, 1983
\nheld that legume in its split form was not the same thing as
\nlegume specified  in the  Schedule  and\t therefore,  in\t the
\nabsence of  a specification,  dal  of  any  of\tthe  legumes
\nenumerated in  the Schedule  cannot be\tsaid to be specified
\nagricultural produce  and therefore, any transaction of sale
\nin respect  of them  was not  exigible to the levy of market
\nfee. In\t reaching this\tconclusion, the High Court took note
\nof the\tfact that  apart from  anything else  the subsequent
\nconduct of  the Government  of U.P.  in issuing Notification
\nNo.   383\/12-5-600   (401)\/81\tdated\tJanuary\t  20,\t1982
\nsubstituting the  entry under  the heading  ‘II\t Legumes’  a
\ndescription in\tthe bracket  against the name of each legume
\n(Saboot Aur  Dala Hua) dispelled doubt, if any, lingering on
\nthe subject.\n<\/p>\n
     During the\t pendency of  the writ petitions in the High
\nCourt, it  appears that\t the Govt.  of U.P.  probably out of
\npanic or  as contended\tbefore us  out of  abundant  caution
\nissued in  exercise of the power conferred by Sec. 4A of the
\nAct the Notification No. 383\/12-\n<\/p>\n
793<\/span><\/p>\n
     5-600(401)\/81 dated  January 20,  1982 which  reads  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
     “In exercise  of the  powers conferred  upon him  under
\n     Section 4A\t of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam,
\n     1964 (U.P.\t Act No.  25 of 1964) the Governor is hereby
\n     pleased to\t notify that  with effect  from the  date of
\n     publication in  gazette of\t this Notification, in place
\n     of items  mentioned under\tcolumn (1) under the Heading
\n     (legume) in  the Schedule of Section 2(a) the following
\n     items shall be substituted, namely-
\n     Legumes\t\t Amended Krishi Utpadan Legume\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
 1. Chana\t\t 1. Chana (Saboot Aur Dala Hua)\n<\/p>\n
 2. Matar\t\t 2. Matar (Saboot Aur Dali Hui)\n<\/p>\n
 3. Arhar\t\t 3. Arhar (Saboot Aur Dali Hui)\n<\/p>\n
 4. Urad\t\t 4. Urad  (Saboot Aur Dali Hui)\n<\/p>\n
 5. Moong\t\t 5. Moong (Saboot Aur Dali Hui)\n<\/p>\n
 6. Masoor\t\t 6. Masoor (Saboot Aur Dali Hui)\n<\/p>\n
 7. Lobhia (seeds)\t 7. Lobhia (Saboot Aur Dali Hui)\n<\/p>\n
 8. Soyabeen\t\t 8. Soyabeen\n<\/p>\n
 9. Khosari\t\t 9. Khosari (Saboot Aur Dali Hui)\n<\/p>\n
10. Sanai (seeds)\t10. Sanai (seeds)\n<\/p>\n
11. Dhencha (seeds)\t11. Dhencha (seeds)\n<\/p>\n
12. Gwar\t\t12. Gwar\n<\/p>\n
13. Moth\t\t13. Moth (Saboot Aur Dali Hui)\n<\/p>\n
14. Kulthi\t\t14. Kulthi.”\n<\/p>\n
     After taking  note of this notification, the High Court
\nobserved that  by the  amendment of the relevant part of the
\nSchedule to  the Act,  the Government  recognised and almost
\nadmitted that  legumes whole and legumes split two different
\ncommodities and\t as now by the notification both have become
\nspecified agricultural\tproduce,  earlier  only\t the  legume
\nwhole grain  and not  in the  split form  was the  specified
\nagricultural produce  and therefore,  till the\tissue of the
\nnotification the  Market Committee  was not entitled to levy
\nmarket fee  on the  transaction of  sale of  dal of  various
\nlegumes.\n<\/p>\n
     After the\tnotification  dated  January  20,  1982\t was
\nissued,\t a   fresh  batch   of\twrit  petitions\t were  filed
\nchallenging both  the validity\tof the\tnotification as also
\nthe eligibility of the Market Committee to levy
\n794<\/span>
\nmarket fee  on the  transaction of sale in respect of dal of
\nlegumes. It  was contended that merely amending or adding to
\nthe list  of agricultural produce set out in the Schedule by
\nitself without\tanything more  would not  enable the  Market
\nCommittee  to\tlevy  market   fee  on\t the  sale  of\tsuch
\nagricultural produce  because before  levying market fee the
\nagricultural  produce\thas  to\t be  notified  as  specified
\nagricultural produce  by issuing either a notification under
\nSec. 6\tor addition or alteration in exercise of power under
\nSec. 8 of the Act. It was contended that after the amendment
\nof  the\t  Schedule  by\t the  impugned\t notification  fresh
\nnotification either  under Sec.\t 6 or Sec. 8 having not been
\nissued the  agricultural produce introduced in the Schedule,
\nnamely, dal  of various\t legumes have  not become  specified
\nagricultural produce since the amendment of the Schedule and
\ntherefore, any\tsale in respect of such agricultural produce
\neven in the Market Area will not enable the Market Committee
\nto levy market fee nor would it oblige persons or parties to
\nthe transaction\t of sale  to pay  the same.  This contention
\nequally found  favour with  the High Court. It was held that
\ntill the agricultural produce under the heading ‘II Legumes’
\nset out\t in the\t Schedule since the amendment of January 20,
\n1982 are  notified as  specified agricultural  produce,\t the
\nMarket Committee was not entitled to levy and collect market
\nfee on the transaction of sale of such agricultural produce.
\nThe High Court accordingly allowed the petitions and quashed
\nthe notice issued by the Market Committee raising the demand
\nfor market fee.\n<\/p>\n
     Hence these appeals by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
     If the  contention raised on behalf of the appellant in
\nthe first  batch of appeals is accepted, the judgment of the
\nHigh Court  in the  second batch  of appeals will have to be
\nquashed and set aside without anything more. In view of this
\ninter-connection between  the two  batches of  appeals, they
\nwere heard together though one after the other and are being
\ndisposed of by this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
     To appreciate  the very  narrow contention\t arising  in
\nthese appeals,\ta glance  at the  relevant provisions of the
\nAct is indispensable.\n<\/p>\n
     The Act was enacted as its long title shows ‘to provide
\nfor the\t regulation of\tsale and  purchase  of\tagricultural
\nproduce\t and  for  the\testablishment,\tsuperintendence\t and
\ncontrol of markets therefore in
\n795<\/span>
\nUttar Pradesh.’\t ‘Agricultural produce’\t is defined  in Sec.
\n2(a) as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “”agricultural  produce”   means  such   items  of
\n     produce  of   agriculture,\t horticulture,\tviticulture,
\n     apiculture, sericulture, pisciculture, animal husbandry
\n     or\t forest\t as  are  specified  in\t the  Schedule,\t and
\n     includes admixture\t of two\t or more  of such items, and
\n     also includes  any such  item in  processed  form,\t and
\n     further  includes\tgur,  rab,  shakkar,  khandsari\t and
\n     jaggery;”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ‘Market Area’  is defined in Sec. 2(k) to mean ‘an area
\nnotified as  such under\t Section 6,  or\t as  modified  under
\nSection 8.’  ‘Specified agricultural  produce’ is defined in
\nSec. 2(t)  to mean  ‘agricultural produce  specified in\t the
\nnotification under  Sec. 6  or as modified under Section 8.’
\n‘Sub-Market Yard’ is defined in Sec. 2(w) to mean ‘a portion
\nof a Market Area, declared as such under Section 7.’ Sec. 4-
\nA which\t was introduced\t in the\t Act by\t U.P. Act 10 of 1970
\nconferred power on the State Govt. to amend the Schedule. It
\nreads as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “4-A. The  State Government may by notification in
\n     the Gazette,  add to, amend or omit any of the items of
\n     agricultural produce  specified in\t the  Schedule,\t and
\n     thereupon\t the\tSchedule   shall    stand    amended
\n     accordingly.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Sec. 5  provides that  a declaration  of  intention  to
\nregulate and  control  sale  and  purchase  of\tagricultural
\nproduce in  any area.  Where the  State Government is of the
\nopinion that  it is  necessary or  expedient in\t the  public
\ninterest  to   regulate\t the   sale  and   purchase  of\t any
\nagricultural produce  in any  area, and\t for that purpose to
\ndeclare that  area as  a Market Area it may, by notification
\nin  the\t Gazette,  and\tin  such  other\t manner\t as  may  be
\nprescribed, declare  its intention  so\tto  do,\t and  invite
\nobjections against the proposed declaration. Sec. 6 provides
\nfor  the   declaration\tof   Market  Area   in\trespect\t  of
\nagricultural produce  set out  in  the\tnotification  issued
\nunder Sec.  5 after  considering the  objections. A combined
\nreading of Section 5 and 6 would show that in order to be an
\neffective declaration,\tthe notification  must set  out\t the
\nMarket Area  that is its geographical boundaries as also the
\nagricultural produce  in respect of which the Market Area is
\nso declared.  Sec. 7  confers power to carve out Market Yard
\nand Sub-Market Yards in a Market Area.\n<\/p>\n
796<\/span><\/p>\n
Sec. 8 confers power on the State Government to alter Market
\nArea as\t also  modification  of\t the  list  of\tagricultural
\nproduce in  respect of\teach Market Area. If a change in the
\ngeographical limits  of a  Market Area\tbecomes necessary or
\naddition or  omission in the list of agricultural produce in
\nrespect of a Market Area is desired, Sec. 8 confers power on
\nthe State Government by a notification to that effect in the
\nGazette to  so alter  the Market  Area or modify the list of
\nagricultural produce.  Every agricultural produce set out in
\nnotification  declaring\t a  Market  Area  under\t Sec.  6  or
\nalterations made under Sec. 8 becomes specified agricultural
\nproduce for  the purposes  of the  Act. Sec.  9 sets out the
\neffects of  a declaration  of a\t Market Area,  the principal
\nbeing that  no one  within  the\t Market\t Area  can  set\t up,
\nestablish or  continue or  allowed to be set up, established
\nor continue,  any place\t for the sale-purchase, storage etc.
\nof the\tspecified agricultural\tproduce, except under and in
\naccordance with\t the conditions\t of a licence granted by the
\nCommittee.  Sub-sec.   (2)  confers   power  on\t the  Market
\nCommittee to  give licence  to carry on business as a trader
\netc. in\t the Principal\tMarket Yard or Sub-Market Yard. Sec.
\n17 enumerates  the powers  of the Market Committee which has
\nto be  set up  for each\t Market Area as required by Sec. 12,
\nwhich inter  alia includes  the power  to levy\tand  collect
\nmarket fee  in\tthe  circumstances  therein  mentioned.\t The
\nrelevant portion of it reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
     “17. A  Committee shall,  for the\tPurposes of the Act,
\n     have the power to-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     ………………………………………..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (iii) levy and collect:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (a)……………………………………\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (b)  market fee, which shall be payable on transactions
\n\t  of sale  of specified\t agricultural produce in the
\n\t  market area at such rates, being not less than one
\n\t  per  centum\tand  not  more\tthan  one  and\thalf
\n\t  percentum of the price of the agricultural produce
\n\t  so sold,  as the  State Government  may specify by
\n\t  notification, and  such fee  shall be\t realised in
\n\t  the following manner:-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (1)  If the  produce is sold through a commission agent
\n\t  the commission  agent may  realise the  market fee
\n\t  from the  purchaser and shall be liable to pay the
\n\t  same to the Committee
\n797<\/span>
\n\t  if the  produce is  purchased directly by a trader
\n\t  from a  producer the trader shall be liable to pay
\n\t  the market fee to the Committee;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     (3)  if the  produce is  purchased\t by  a\ttrader\tfrom
\n\t  another trader, the trader selling the produce may
\n\t  realise it  from the purchaser and shall be liable
\n\t  to pay the market fee to the Committee; and
\n     (4)  in any  other case  of sale  of such\tproduce, the
\n     purchaser shall  be liable to pay the market fee to the
\n     Committee;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Provided  that   no  market  fee  shall  be  levied  or
\n     collected\ton   the  retail   sale\t of   any  specified
\n     agricultural produce  where such  sale is\tmade to\t the
\n     consumer;…………”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     The schedule  appended to\tthe Act\t enumerates  various
\nspecies of agricultural produce as required by Sec. (2) (a).
\nUnder the  heading “II Legumes’ in the Schedule 14 different
\nlegumes such  as (1)  Gram (2)\tPeas (3) Arhar (4) Urad etc.
\nare specified for the purpose of Sec. 2(a) and Sec. 4A.\n<\/p>\n
     On the  date on which the first batch of writ petitions
\nwere filed  in the  High Court,\t the  relevant\tnotification
\nunder Sec. 5 read with Sec. 6 provided that with effect from
\nMay 1, 1978 the agricultural produce mention in the Schedule
\n‘kha’ shall  be included in the list of agricultural produce
\nof the\tMarket Area  mentioned\tin  Schedule  ‘ka’.  Amongst
\nothers at plecitum (2) following entries are to be found:\n<\/p>\n
     “(2) Dwi Daliya Utpadan:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (1) Channa  (2) Matar (3) Arhar (4) Urad (5) Moong
\n\t  (6) Masoor  (7) Lobhia  (seed)  (8)  Soyabeen\t (9)
\n\t  Sanai (seed) (10) Dhencha (seed) (11) Ganwar.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
set out\t in the Schedule which became specified agricultural
\nproduce by  being included  in the  notification dated April
\n11, 1978  could only be legume whole grain and not its split
\nportions  which\t is  the  end  product\tof  a  manufacturing
\nprocess. It  was said  that the\t dal which  is\tobtained  by
\napplying a process of manufacture to the
\n798<\/span>
\nwhole grain  of legumes\t is neither  an agricultural produce
\nand at\tany rate it is not a specified agricultural produce.
\nThe High Court charted an easy course by merely referring to
\nthe subsequent\tnotification dated  January 20,\t 1982  which
\nsubstituted entry under heading ‘II Legumes’ in the Schedule
\nby putting  into bracket  words ‘Saboot\t Aur Dala  Hua’\t and
\nconcluded that\tif an  amendment by  a\tnotification  became
\nnecessary to bring split folds of legume in the Schedule, by
\nnecessary implication  they could  not have been included or
\ndeemed ever  to have  been  included  in  the  Schedule\t “II
\nLegumes’ prior\tto the\tamendment and  therefore market\t fee
\ncould not  be levied  on the  transaction of  sale of  split
\nfolds of  legume dal  in a  Market Area.  We propose for the
\ntime being  to ignore  this notification  and concentrate on
\nthe  entry  in\tthe  Schedule  as  it  stood  prior  to\t the
\nnotification dated  January 20,\t 1982 and  the definition of
\nthe expression\t‘agricultural produce’\tto ascertain whether
\nany of\tthe enumerated\tlegumes in  the condition  of  whole
\ngrain or  in the  split folds  were  specified\tagricultural
\nproduce\t comprehended  with  the  terminological  exactitude
\ndescribed as  Gram, Peas, Arhar Urad etc. In other words, if
\nGram, Peas,  Arhar  Urad  etc.\tis  mentioned  as  specified
\nagricultural produce in the notification either under Sec. 5
\nread with  Sec. 6  or under  Sec. 8,  would it mean only its
\nwhole grain  or would  it also taken in the product known as
\ndal obtained  by splitting  the whole  grain  into  its\t two
\nfolds.\n<\/p>\n
     To resolve\t this controversy,  one will  have  to\tseek
\nlight  from   the  definition  of  expression  ‘agricultural
\nproduce’ as  set out  in Sec.  2(a) of\tthe Act and not by a
\nresort to  decisions under  entirely different statutes such
\nas the\tSales Tax  laws to  find out whether the whole grain
\nand its\t split folds  constitute the  same  product  or\t two
\ndifferent   and\t  independent\tproducts   commercially\t  so
\nrecognised. It\tis an  indisputable can-on  of\tconstruction
\nthat where  an expression  is defined in the statute, unless
\nthere is  anything repugnant  in the subject or context, the
\nexpression has\tto be  construed as  having the same meaning
\nassigned to it in the dictionary clause of the statute. This
\ncanon of  construction is  to well-recognised to necessitate
\nany reference to precedent.\n<\/p>\n
     Analysing\t the\tdefinition   of\t   the\t  expression
\n‘agricultural produce’,\t it would  mean not only those items
\nof produce  of agriculture as are specified in the Schedule,
\nbut will  also include\tthe admixture of two or more of such
\nitems as also any such item in its
\n799<\/span>
\nprocessed  form.   Let\tus   re-write  the   definition\t  by
\nsubstituting one  of the  items\t in  the  Schedule  to\tmake
\nexplicit what  is implicit  therein.  Agricultural  produce’
\nmeans a\t produce of agriculture such as Gram as specified in
\nthe Schedule  and would\t also include  Gram in its processed
\nform. Therefore,  not only  Gram is  an agricultural produce
\nbut Gram  in its  processed form  is equally an agricultural
\nproduce. When  it is  said in  the definition ‘such items of
\nproduce of  agriculture as are specified in the Schedule, it
\nmeans that  not only all those items of agricultural produce
\nwhich  are   set  out\tin  the\t  Schedule  will  constitute
\nagricultural produce  but also\tthe admixture of two or more
\nof such\t items of  produce of  agriculture as set out in the
\nSchedule as well as any such items of agriculture produce in
\ntheir processed\t form. Suppose a producer sells neither Gram
\nnor Peas  each by  itself but mixes Gram and Peas, according
\nto the\tcontention canvassed  on behalf\t of the respondents,
\nthis mixture  would be\tnot  an\t agricultural  produce.\t The
\ncontention can\tbe negatived  by referring to the definition
\nwhich says  agricultural produce means such items of produce
\nof agriculture\t(omitting the  words which are not necessary
\nfor the present purpose)… as are specified in the Schedule
\nsuch as Gram and Peas as also an admixture of two or more of
\nsuch items  i.e. admixture  of Gram and Peas. A further step
\ncan  be\t  taken\t as  flowing  from  the\t definition  itself.
\nAgricultural  produce\tmeans  such  items  of\tagricultural
\nproduce namely,\t Gram as  specified in\tthe Schedule  and it
\nshall include  any such\t items i.e.  Gram in  its  processed
\nform. Even  the respondents did not contend, on the contrary
\nit was\tthe sheet  anchor of  their submission\tthat a split
\nlegume is obtained by a manufacturing process of whole grain
\nof legumes, ‘Saboot’ as it is now described, and that dal i.
\ne. the\twhole grain  split into\t two folds  is its processed
\nform acquired  by manufacturing\t process. Even\ton their own
\nsubmission dal\tof legume  enumerated in the Schedule is any
\nagricultural produce.\n<\/p>\n
     This very\tconclusion can\tbe  reached  by\t a  slightly
\ndifferent  route.   As\tis   well-known,   the\t legislative
\nenactments in  the State  of U.P.  are enacted\tprimarily in
\nHindi language and its official and authentic translation in
\nEnglish is  simultaneously published.  Bearing this in mind,
\nwe turn\t to the notification dated April 11, 1978 specifying
\nlegumes therein enumerated as specified agricultural produce
\nfor various  Market Areas.  The heading\t under which various
\nlegumes are  enumerated is  Dwi Daliya Utpadan.’ This tongue
\ntwister was  explained to  us to  mean that legume itself is
\nDwi Daliya
\n800<\/span>
\nUtpadan i.e. the whole grain is made of two folds. Ek daliya
\ngrain is  without a  fold. Dwi Daliya is a grain composed of
\ntwo folds  and certainly  not  many  folds,  Concise  Oxford
\nDictionary specifies  the meaning  of legume  to  be  fruit,
\nedible part  pode, of  leguminous plant;  vegetable used for
\nfood, ‘and leguminous’ to mean’ like of the botanical family
\nof pulse. And in common parlance ‘pulse’ connotes legume and
\ndenotes dal  of legume.\t Reverting however,  to the  heading
\nunder which  legumes are enumerated in 1978 notification, it
\nmust be confessed that it clearly connotes the meaning to be
\ngiven to the whole grain and denotes dal i.e. split folds as
\nspecified agricultural\tproduce. The Hindi protagonists used
\nthe expression\t‘Dwi Dalia  Utpadan’ meaning  thereby double
\nfolded grain  called Gram,  Peas, Arhar,  moong, etc.  On  a
\nstrict construction, the two dals i.e. two parts forming the
\nwhole grain  both are  comprehended in\tthe expression\t‘Dwi
\nDalia Utpadan’.\t Therefore, it\tis crystal  clear that while
\nenumerating legumes  in the  Schedule and  reproduced in the
\n1978  notification   to\t make  them  specified\tagricultural
\nproduce, the framers intended to include both the grain as a
\nwhole  and   its  splits   parts  the\tdal.  And  when\t the
\nagricultural produce enumerated in the Schedule such as Gram
\nincluding  its\t processed  part   is  reproduced   in\t the
\nnotification as\t Dwi Dalia  Utpadan, the  dal of each of the
\nlegumes\t therein  mentioned  became  specified\tagricultural
\nproduce.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  however, urged  that if the legume in the split
\nform is\t the same  as legume  as a  whole grain,  the Market
\nCommittee would\t not be\t entitled to  levy any market fee on
\nthe transaction\t of sale  of legume  in split  form  because
\nmarket fee  already having  been once  levied in the form of
\nthe whole  grain, a  second  levy  on  the  product  is\t not
\ncontemplated by\t the Act.  Reference in\t this connection was
\nmade to the decision in Ramesh Chandra etc. v. State of U.P.
\netc. in\t which levy  of market\tfee under the Act by various
\nMarket Committee  was challenged on diverse grounds, on such
\nbeing that  if market fee is paid on the transaction of sale
\nof  paddy  though  rice\t is  separately\t enumerated  in\t the
\nSchedule, no  market fee  could be livied on the transaction
\nof sale\t of rice.  This Court has observed at page 130 that,
\nif paddy  is purchased in a particular market area by a rice
\nmiller and  the same  paddy is\tconverted into rice and sold
\nthen the rice miller will be liable to pay market fee on
\n801<\/span>
\nhis purchase  of paddy from the agriculturist-producer under
\nsub-clause (2)\tof section  17 (iii) (b). He cannot be asked
\nto pay\tmarket\tfee  over  again  under\t sub-clause  (3)  in
\nrelation to  the transaction of rice. Nor will it be open to
\nthe Market  Committee to choose between either of the two in
\nthe example  just given\t above. Market\tfee has to be levied
\nand collected in relation to the transaction of paddy alone.
\nReliance was  also placed  on the  observation at  page\t 132
\nwhere the  court observed  ‘if Catechu\tis a product of khar
\ntrees by some processing, as prima facie it appears to us to
\nbe so,\tthen it is plain that market fee can be charged only
\non the\tpurchase of  khar  wood\t and  not  on  the  sale  of
\nCatechu.’ Reliance  was also  placed on M\/s Ashok Industries
\nand Ors\t v. State  of Bihar  and Ors(1)\t where similar\tview
\nappears to  have been taken. We fail to see the significance
\nof this\t submission in these appeals because this contention
\nwas not\t canvassed before the High Court and the respondents
\nmerely invited\tthe High Court to decide that dal of legumes
\nenumerated in  the Schedule  are not  specified agricultural
\nproduce. If  the respondents  are entitled  to any relief on
\nthe view  of the  matter taken in Ramesh Chandra’s case they
\nmay obtain  appropriate relief,\t but  as  has  been  rightly
\nobserved by this Court that redress of the grievance in this
\nbehalf depending  upon deciding\t a disputed question of fact
\ncannot be  rendered here for want of pleading in this behalf
\nand for\t want of a decision by the High Court on this point.
\nBut on\tthis account  it  is  not  possible  to\t accept\t the
\nsubmission of  the respondent  that legume in the split form
\nis not comprehended in the Schedule to the Act as well as in
\nthe notification dated April 11, 1978.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Shanti\t Bhushan for  some of  the respondents urged
\nthat  the   respondents\t have\tset  up\t their\tfactory\t for
\nprocessing whole  grain of  legumes into its split folds and
\nthe commodity known as dal is a well recognised identifiable
\ncommercial commodity  distinct from  the legume\t whole grain
\nfrom which  it is  derived by a manufacturing process and as
\nthe Act was enacted for protecting the interest of producers
\nof agricultural produce, the factory owners being in no need
\nof such protection cannot be subjected to the levy of market
\nfee on\tthe transaction of sale of legume in split form. The
\nsubmission does\t not commend to us because it proceeds on an
\nerroneous assumption  that the Act was primarily enacted for
\nthe  protection\t  of  producers\t of  scheduled\tagricultural
\nproduce. In fact, as
\n802<\/span>
\npointed out  earlier, the  Act was enacted primarily for the
\nregulation of  sale and purchase of agricultural produce and
\nfor  the   establishment,  superintendence  and\t control  of
\nmarkets therefor.  In the  Statement of\t objects and reasons
\naccompanying the  Act,\tit  is\tin  terms  stated  that\t the
\nproposed measure  to regulate  the market  in the  State has
\nbeen designed  with a  view to achieving the objects therein
\nenumerated, only  one of  them\tbeing  to  ensure  that\t the
\nagricultural producer  has his\tsay in\tthe  utilisation  of
\nmarket funds  for the  improvement of the market as a whole.
\nAgricultural produce  has nowhere been mentioned in the nine
\nobjects set  out therein  except as  mentioned above. On the
\nother hand,  the Constitution Bench in Ramesh Chandra’s case
\nnoticed that the ‘Act was enacted for the development of new
\nmarket\tareas\tand  for   efficient  data   collection\t and
\nprocessing of  arrivals in  the Mandis\tto enable  the World
\nBank to\t give a\t substantial help  for the  establishment of
\nvarious markets\t in the\t State of U.P.’ The Act was compared
\nwith similar  statutes in  force in  different States  and a
\ndistinguishing feature\twas pointed out that in other States
\nthe  Act  is  mainly  meant  to\t protect  the  agriculturist
\nproducer from  being exploited\twhen he\t comes to the Mandis
\nfor selling his agricultural produce. This Court observed in
\nagreement  with\t  the  High   Court   that   certain   other
\ntransactions also  have been roped in the levy of market fee
\nin which  both sides  are traders  and neither\tside  is  an
\nagriculturist and  this has  been  done\t for  the  effective
\nimplementation of  the scheme  of establishments  of markets
\nmainly\tfor   the  benefit   of\t producers.   Approving\t the
\nobservation in Kewal Krishna Puri & Anr v. State of Punjab &
\nOrs.(1) the  Court further  observed that  the fee  realised
\nfrom the  payer has by and large to be spent for his special
\nbenefits and for the benefit of other persons connected with
\nthe transaction\t of purchase  and sale\tin  various  Mandis.
\nTherefore, it  cannot be  said that  the respondents-factory
\nowners not  being agricultural\tproducers and  not being  in
\nsearch of  any protection  of the Market Committee could not
\nbe subjected to the levy of market fee. In fact, the primary
\nobject of  the Act  as far as the State of U.P. is concerned
\nis regulation  of sale\tand purchase of agricultural produce
\nirrespective  of   the\tcharacter   of\tthe   party  to\t the
\ntransaction save  and except  that character  is relevant as
\nset out\t in sub-clauses\t (1) to (4) of Sec. 17 (iii) (b). It
\nis not\ta relevant  consideration whether the factory owners
\nneed any  protection but the real question is whether people
\ndealing with them need pro-\n<\/p>\n
803<\/span><\/p>\n
tection. Viewed\t from either  angle, we find no merit in the
\nsubmission.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Y.S.  Chitale referred\t to M\/s\t Ganesh Trading\t Co.
\nKarnal etc.  etc. v.  State of Haryana & Anr. etc., Babu Ram
\nJagdish Kumar  and Co.\tetc. etc.  v. State of Punjab & Ors.
\netc. etc.  State of Karnataka v. B Raghurama Shetty<\/a> etc. and
\nM\/s Laxmi  Chand Badri\tNarain v.  The Commissioner of sales
\nTax. M.P.  and urged  that dehusked  paddy which is rice has
\nbeen held  to be  not the  same or  identical goods  but  to
\ndistinct  commercially\t known\tcommodities   and  they\t are
\nseparately enumerated  and therefore,  one does\t not include
\nthe other.  In all  the four  judgments, the  question arose
\nunder the  relevant Sales Tax law. The contention raised was
\nwhether paddy  and rice can be considered as identical goods
\nfor the\t purpose of  imposition of  sales tax  ?  Under\t the
\nrelevant Sale Tax Act exemption from payment of sales tax is
\nprovided if  the very paddy in respect of which purchase tax
\nwas levied  was sold and not if that paddy is converted into
\nrice and  sold. The  contention was  that paddy and rice are
\nidentical goods\t and  therefore,  when\tthe  law  grants  an
\nexemption  in  respect\tof  paddy  that\t exemption  is\talso
\navailable to  rice. It\twas urged  that rice  is nothing but
\ndehusked paddy\tand when  the paddy is dehusked, there is no
\nchange in  the identity\t of the\t goods. This  contention was
\nnegatived in all the four cases depending upon provisions of
\nthe relevant  Sales Tax\t Law. It  was however  said that the
\nratio of  the decision would assist us in understanding what
\nis the\tprocessed form of a particular agricultural produce.
\nApproaching the\t matter from  this angle,  it was urged that
\nthough rice  is produced  out of paddy, this Court held that
\nit is  not true to say that paddy continued to be paddy even
\nafter dehusking,  and  they  are  two  different  things  in
\nordinary parlance.  This ratio cannot assist us at all for a
\nvery good  reason. It  was not\tpointed out  to us  that the
\nvarious provisions  of the relevant Sales Tax Law which came
\nfor consideration  of this Court in those four decisions did
\nor  did\t  not  have   a\t definition   such  as\twe  have  of
\n‘agricultural produce’ in Sec. 2(a) of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     In\t this  connection,  however  specific  reliance\t was
\nplaced on  the decision\t of Modi  Spinning and Weaving Mills
\nCo. Ltd. Modi-\n<\/p>\n
804<\/span><\/p>\n
nagar &\t Ors. etc.  v. State  of U.P.  & Anr. wherein in the
\ncontext of  the Act,  it was  held that\t ‘cotton ginned\t and
\nunginned, ‘and therefore, it was held that no market fee was
\nleviable on  the transaction  of sale  of cotton  waste.  In
\nreaching this  conclusion, a Division Bench of the Allahabad
\nHigh Court  held that  if ‘cotton  ginned and  unginned’ was
\nspecified as  an agricultural produce yet cotton waste which
\nis a  processed form  of cotton\t was not  so specified,\t the
\nLegislature  indicated\tnot  to\t include  the  same  in\t the
\nspecified agricultural\tproduce. The Court posed to itself a
\nquestion: whether  cotton waste\t is processed from of cotton
\nwhile posing to itself another question: is cotton processed
\nfor manufacture\t of cotton  waste ? The Court than proceeded
\nto observe  that in  Sec. 2(b)\tof the\tCotton\tGinning\t and
\nPressing Factories  Act, 1925 ‘cotton’ is defined as “cotton
\nginned or  unginned or\tcotton waste”. While in Sec. 2(b) of
\nthe Cotton Transport Act, 1923, ‘cotton’ has been defined to
\nmean  every   kind  of\tunmanufactured\tcotton,\t ginned\t and
\nunginned  cotton,   cotton  waste  and\tcotton\tseed.  After
\nreferring to  these definitions,  the Court held that cotton
\nwaste is not included in ‘cotton ginned or unginned.’ In our
\nopinion, the  court has\t strained the  language to  reach an
\nunsustainable conclusion,  holding that\t cotton waste is not
\nthe processed  form of\tcotton but  it is a by-product quite
\ndifferent form\tof cotton  though  containing  cotton  fibre
\nwhich cannot  be  used\tas  ordinary  cotton.  As  its\tname
\nindicates, cotton  waste appears  to be droppings, stripping
\nand other  waste product  while ginning cotton. It cannot be
\nsaid to\t be a  bye-product of  cotton but it is cotton none-
\nthe-less minus\tthe removed  seed.  In\tother  words  it  is
\nresidue of ginned cotton. We therefore, find it difficult to
\nagree with  the view  of the High Court that cotton waste is
\nnot comprehended in the item ‘cotton ginned and unginned.’
\n     Lastly a  reference was made to the State of Gujarat v.
\nSakarwala  Brothers.(2)\t  The  question\t that  came  up\t for
\nconsideration before  this Court  was: whether Sales tax was
\npayable in  respect of sales of patasa, narda and alchidana?
\nThe  contention\t arose\tin  the\t context  of  the  provision
\ncontained in  Sec. 5(1) of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959 in
\nits application\t to the State of Gujarat which provided that
\n‘notwithstanding anything  contained in the Act, but subject
\nto the\tconditions or  exceptions (if  any) set\t out against
\neach of\t the goods  specified in  column 3 of Schedule A, no
\ntax shall be
\n805<\/span>
\npayable on  the sales or purchases of any goods specified in
\nthe Schedule.’\tThe relevant  entry is the ‘sugar as defined
\nin Item\t No. 8\tof the\tFirst Schedule to the Central Excise
\nand Salt  Act, 1944.’  Affirming the decision of the Gujarat
\nHigh Court  this Court held that patasa, harda and alchidana
\nwere exempt  from any tax payable under the Bombay Sales Tax
\nAct, 1959  because they\t are comprehended  in the expression
\n‘sugar’ in the entry granting exemption. This conclusion was
\nreached holding\t that the  expression ‘sugar’  in  Entry  47
\ngranting exemption  will comprehend  within  its  ambit\t all
\nforms of  sugar that  is to  say,  sugar  of  any  shape  or
\ntexture, colour\t or density  and  by  whatever\tname  it  is
\ncalled. If  this line  of reasoning is adopted, legume whole
\ngrain will  necessary comprehend  both folds  of  the  whole
\ngrain. But  we do  not propose\tto rest\t our decision on the
\napproach  to  various  commodities  commercially  recognised
\ndistinct under relevant Sales Tax Law.\n<\/p>\n
     To sum  up, for  the reasons  herein stated,  the\tHigh
\nCourt was in error in holding that the legume whole grain as
\nset out in the Schedule does not include its split form i,e.
\ndal and\t therefore,  no\t market\t fee  was  leviable  on\t the
\ntransaction of sale of legume in split form. This conclusion
\ndisposes  of  first  batch  of\tappeals\t arising  from\twrit
\npetitions filed\t prior to  the issue  of notification  dated
\nJanuary 20, 1982.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  other batch of petitions which came to be filed
\nafter  the  notification  of  January  20,  1982,  Mr.\tF.S.
\nNariman, learned counsel appearing in C.A. No. 2286\/84 urged
\nthat even if under Sec. 4-A of the Act, the State Government
\nhad the\t power to  add to, amend or omit any of the items of
\nagricultural produce specified in the Schedule and if by the
\nnotification dated  January 20,\t 1982, the  State Government
\npurported to  substitute  the  Schedule\t under\tthe  Heading
\n‘legumes’ by  putting into  bracket  by\t the  side  of\teach
\nenumerated legume ‘Saboot or Dala Hua’, that by itself would
\nnot make  such agricultural  produce ‘specified agricultural
\nproduce’. It  was urged\t and in\t our opinion,  rightly\tthat
\nbefore a  transaction of sale, as set out in Sec. 17(iii)(b)
\nof the\tAct, of an agricultural produce becomes exigible for
\nthe levy of market fee, the agricultural produce has to be a
\n‘specified agricultural\t produce’ and that can be done by an
\nappropriate notification  under Sec.  5 read  with Sec. 6 or
\nunder Sec.  8  of  the\tAct  and  until\t that  is  done\t the
\nagricultural produce  even if  it is  so enumerated  in\t the
\nSchedule does  not become  ‘specified agricultural  produce’
\nand no\tmarket fee  can be levied on the transaction of sale
\nof such agricultural produce. It
\n806<\/span>
\nwas urged  that\t for  steps  have  to  be  taken  before  an
\nagricultural  produce\tbecomes\t a  ‘specified\tagricultural
\nproduce’ in  respect of\t a Market Area. Undoubtedly, when in
\nexercise of  powers conferred by Sec. 5 the State Government
\npublishes its  intention to  set  up  a\t Market\t Area  by  a
\nnotification in\t the Official  Gazette, the State Government
\nis simultaneously  under an  obligation to  specify not only
\nthe  Market   Area  that   is  its  geographical  limits  or
\nboundaries but\tmust specify  the agricultural\tproduce quay
\nsuch Market  Area. After inviting objections both in respect
\nof the\tMarket Area  and the agricultural produce, a further
\nnotification is\t required to  be issued\t under Sec. 6 making
\nthe requisite declaration both in respect of the Market Area
\nas well\t as the\t agricultural produce.\tWhen these two steps
\nare  taken,   the  agricultural\t  produce  set\tout  in\t the
\nnotification  issued   under  Sec.   6\t becomes   specified
\nagricultural produce  in relation to Market Area notified in
\nthe notification.  Sec. 8  confers power to alter the Market
\nArea or\t the agricultural  produce in respect of the altered
\nMarket Area.  When these  steps are  taken then\t alone those
\nagricultural produces  enumerated in  the notification under
\nSec. 6\tor under Sec. 8 would assume and acquire the mark or
\ncharacter of  ‘specified agricultural  produce,’ on the sale
\ntransaction of\twhich market fee can be levied by the Market
\nCommittee. Proceeding  along it was urged that even though a
\nnotification was  issued under\tSec. 4-A on January 20, 1982
\namending the  Schedule in respect of legumes, in the absence
\nof a  notification under  Sec.\t8  making  the\tagricultural
\nproduce\t so   introduced  in   the  Schedule   as  specified
\nagricultural produce,  those agricultural produces would not
\nacquire the  character of  specified  agricultural  produces
\nqua-Market Area\t and  therefore,  the  respondents  are\t not
\nliable to  pay\tany  market  fee  thereon.  If\tthe  amended
\nSchedule introduced  by the  notification dated\t January 20,
\n1982 introduces fresh agricultural produces in the Schedule,
\nthe contention\tof Mr. Nariman must carry conviction because
\nit was\tconceded that  a fresh\tnotification under Sec. 8 in
\nrespect of  the legumes\t has not  been issued.\tBut the view
\nwhich we  have taken  is that  the entries under the heading
\n‘legumes’ in the Schedule as it stood prior to the amendment
\nof January  20, 1982  comprehended both\t the whole  grain of
\nlegumes and  its split\tpart that  is dal. What was implicit
\nhas been  made explicit and therefore, no fresh notification
\nunder Sec. 8 was necessary. Therefore, the contention has to
\nbe negatived.  As that\twas the\t only  contention  canvassed
\nbefore this  Court in the second batch of appeals as we find
\nno merit  in it,  the second batch of appeals will also have
\nto be allowed.\n<\/p>\n
807<\/span><\/p>\n
     Lastly, the  respondents contended\t that  if  the\tview
\ntaken by  the High Court on the question that split grain of
\nlegume, that  is dal was not comprehended in the whole grain
\nof legume as set out in the Schedule and therefore, the same
\nwas not\t a specified  agricultural is held not to be correct
\nand accordingly the judgment of the High Court would have to
\nbe upset,  all the matters may be remitted to the High Court
\nfor disposing  of other\t contentions canvassed\ton behalf of
\nthe respondents\t who were  petitioners in  the High Court as
\nthe High  Court\t declined  to  examine\tthem,  as  the\twrit
\npetitions were\tallowed on  this one narrow contention which
\naccording to the High Court went to the root of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
     Before the\t High Court,  the respondents raised various
\ncontentions. Most  of them  were repelled by the High Court,
\nbut the\t petitioners succeeded\ton the\tnarrow contention as
\nherein set  out. It was said by Mr. Shanti Bhushan referring
\nto the\twrit petition  in which\t he appeared that there were
\nother contentions  which the  respondents wanted  to canvass
\nbut which the High Court declined to examine. It may be that
\nthere might  be some other contentions which the respondents
\nwanted the  High Court\tto examine and the High Court having
\nheld in\t favour of  the respondents  on one  point may\thave
\ndeclined to  examine the same. Therefore, while allowing the
\nappeals, all the matters are remitted to the High Court. The
\nHigh Court  may examine\t contentions other  than those which
\nwere dealt  with in  the judgment  from\t which\tthe  present
\nbatches of  appeals were  preferred. All  those\t contentions
\nwhich have  been negatived  by the High Court and in respect
\nof each\t one of\t them no  attempt was  made to\tsupport\t the
\njudgment  of   the  High   Court  before  this\tCourt  those
\ncontentions may\t not be permitted to be reopened. The remand
\nis limited  to those questions which find their place in the
\nwrit petitions and which the High Court declined to examine.\n<\/p>\n
     But as  the respondents have failed on almost all major
\ncontentions,  they   need  not\t have  the   benefit  of   a
\ndiscretionary order  of any  stay against levy of market fee
\nany more. With these limitations the matters are remitted to
\nthe High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     All the  appeals accordingly succeed and are allowed to
\nthe extent herein indicated with costs
\nN.V.K.\t  Appeals allowed.\n<\/p>\n
808<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti … vs Ganga Dal Mill And Co. And Ors. Etc on 25 September, 1984 Equivalent citations: 1984 AIR 1870, 1985 SCR (1) 787 Author: D Desai Bench: Desai, D.A. PETITIONER: KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI KANPUR, ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: GANGA DAL MILL AND CO. AND ORS. ETC. DATE […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-75965","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKrishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti ... vs Ganga Dal Mill And Co. And Ors. Etc on 25 September, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti ... vs Ganga Dal Mill And Co. And Ors. Etc on 25 September, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1984-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-25T03:23:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"42 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti … vs Ganga Dal Mill And Co. And Ors. Etc on 25 September, 1984\",\"datePublished\":\"1984-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-25T03:23:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984\"},\"wordCount\":6763,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984\",\"name\":\"Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti ... vs Ganga Dal Mill And Co. And Ors. Etc on 25 September, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1984-09-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-25T03:23:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti … vs Ganga Dal Mill And Co. And Ors. Etc on 25 September, 1984\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti ... vs Ganga Dal Mill And Co. And Ors. Etc on 25 September, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti ... vs Ganga Dal Mill And Co. And Ors. Etc on 25 September, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1984-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-25T03:23:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"42 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti … vs Ganga Dal Mill And Co. And Ors. Etc on 25 September, 1984","datePublished":"1984-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-25T03:23:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984"},"wordCount":6763,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984","name":"Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti ... vs Ganga Dal Mill And Co. And Ors. Etc on 25 September, 1984 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1984-09-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-25T03:23:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishi-utpadan-mandi-samiti-vs-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-on-25-september-1984#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti … vs Ganga Dal Mill And Co. And Ors. Etc on 25 September, 1984"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75965","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=75965"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75965\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75965"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75965"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75965"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}