# KlUSHI tJTPADAN MANDI SAMITI KANPUR, ETC v. GANGA DAL MILL AND CO. AND ORS. ETC

- **Citation:** [1985] 1 S.C.R. 787
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1984-09-25
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos.10072-73 of 1983
- **Bench:** D.A. Desai, V. Balakrishna Eradi, V. Khalid
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/klushi-tjtpadan-mandi-samiti-kanpur-etc-v-ganga-dal-mill-and-co-and-ors-etc-8765
- **Pages:** 21

## Headnote

U.P. Kris/Ji Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964, Secs. 2 (a) and 2 (I} &
State Government Notification dated January 20, 1982.
'legume' notified-•Specified agricultural Produce-Dwi Daliya Utpadan
-Whether comprehenJs both the whole grain of legumes and its split part
that is dal.
Words and Phrases •Legume'-'Dwi Da/iya Utpadan'-'Such items of
produce of agriculture as are specified in the Schedule' - Meaning of Secs. 2 (a)
and 2 (I) U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964.
Practice and Procedure : Disputed question of fact-Deci!ion by Supreme
Court-When permissible.
The Appellant-Market Committee levied market fee on the transaction of sale of da/ of various legumes by the respondents, on the ground that
they were •specified agricultural produce' and the transactions of sale in
respect of them by the respondents in the Market Area would be exigible to
the levy of market fee.
The respondents opposed the aforesaid leVy contending that they were
manufacturing in their factory dal from various iegumes and therefore, not
only they were not producers of agricultural commodities, but in view of the
description of legumes set out in the Schedule of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan
Mandi Adhiniyam 1964, the dal of such legumes in the Processed form was
not a specified agricultural produce and therefore, a transaction of sale in
respect of them at the hands of the respondents even if it takes place in the
Market Area would not permit the Market Committee to levy market fee on
such transaction and that they were not liable to buy the same. It was
further contended that unless the agricultural produce specified in the
Schedule to the Act was notified as a specified agricultural produce in respect
of a particular Market Area, the Market C0mmittee having jurisdiction in
the Market Area would not be entitled to levy market fee on the transaction
of sale of such agricultural produce.
The respondents approached the High Court by filing writ petitions
under Art. 226 contending that the Market Committee continue to levy
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
a~ket fee on the transaction ofdaf and th'i\t it h1d no auth.Jrity t,J do so.
R
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
788
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(198SJ 1 s.c R
The High Court held that lengume in its split form was not the same thing as
legume specified in the Schedule and therefore, in the absence of a specification, dal of any of the legumes enumerated in the Schedule cannot b~ syid
to be specified agricultural produCe'. and therefore, any trr nsaction of s<ile
in respect of them was not exigible to the levy of market fee.
During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions the State Government issued in execise of the power conferred by Sec, 4.i\ of the Act, a notification dated 20th January, 1982 which substituted the split form of legume
for the legume whole grain as specified agricultural produce.
After the issuance of the aforesaid notification, a fresh batch of writ
petitions were filed challenging both the validity of the notification as also
the eligibility of the Market Con11nittee to levy market fee on the transaction
of sale in respect of dal of legun1es. It was contended in the writ petitions
that merely amending or adding to the list of agricultural produce set out in
the Schedule by itself without anything more would not enable the Market
Committee to levy market fee on the sale of. such agricultural produce
because before levying market fee the agricultural produce has to be notified
as specified agricultural produce by issuing either a notification under Sec. 6
or addition or alteration in exyrcise of the power under Sec. 8 of the Act. It
was fu":"ther contended that after the amendment of the Schedule by the
impugned notification, fresh notification either under Sec 6 or Sec. 8 having
not been issued, the agricultural prod Lice introduced in the Schedule namely,
dal of various legumes have not becon1e specified agricultural produce and
therefore any sale in respect of such agricultural produce even in the Market
Area wi11 not enable th

## Text

_Characters 0–39,788 of 52,328. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39788 for what follows._

•
,
'
187
KlUSHI tJTPADAN MANDI SAMITI KANPUR, ETC .
v.
GANGA DAL MILL AND CO. AND ORS. ETC.
September 25, 1984
[D.A. DESAI, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI AND V. KHALID, JJ.)
U.P. Kris/Ji Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964, Secs. 2 (a) and 2 (I} &
State Government Notification dated January 20, 1982.
'legume' notified-•Specified agricultural Produce-Dwi Daliya Utpadan
-Whether comprehenJs both the whole grain of legumes and its split part
that is dal.
Words and Phrases •Legume'-'Dwi Da/iya Utpadan'-'Such items of
produce of agriculture as are specified in the Schedule' - Meaning of Secs. 2 (a)
and 2 (I) U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964.
Practice and Procedure : Disputed question of fact-Deci!ion by Supreme
Court-When permissible.
The Appellant-Market Committee levied market fee on the transaction of sale of da/ of various legumes by the respondents, on the ground that
they were •specified agricultural produce' and the transactions of sale in
respect of them by the respondents in the Market Area would be exigible to
the levy of market fee.
The respondents opposed the aforesaid leVy contending that they were
manufacturing in their factory dal from various iegumes and therefore, not
only they were not producers of agricultural commodities, but in view of the
description of legumes set out in the Schedule of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan
Mandi Adhiniyam 1964, the dal of such legumes in the Processed form was
not a specified agricultural produce and therefore, a transaction of sale in
respect of them at the hands of the respondents even if it takes place in the
Market Area would not permit the Market Committee to levy market fee on
such transaction and that they were not liable to buy the same. It was
further contended that unless the agricultural produce specified in the
Schedule to the Act was notified as a specified agricultural produce in respect
of a particular Market Area, the Market C0mmittee having jurisdiction in
the Market Area would not be entitled to levy market fee on the transaction
of sale of such agricultural produce.
The respondents approached the High Court by filing writ petitions
under Art. 226 contending that the Market Committee continue to levy
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
a~ket fee on the transaction ofdaf and th'i\t it h1d no auth.Jrity t,J do so.
R
A
B
c
0
E
F
G
788
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(198SJ 1 s.c R
The High Court held that lengume in its split form was not the same thing as
legume specified in the Schedule and therefore, in the absence of a specification, dal of any of the legumes enumerated in the Schedule cannot b~ syid
to be specified agricultural produCe'. and therefore, any trr nsaction of s<ile
in respect of them was not exigible to the levy of market fee.
During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions the State Government issued in execise of the power conferred by Sec, 4.i\ of the Act, a notification dated 20th January, 1982 which substituted the split form of legume
for the legume whole grain as specified agricultural produce.
After the issuance of the aforesaid notification, a fresh batch of writ
petitions were filed challenging both the validity of the notification as also
the eligibility of the Market Con11nittee to levy market fee on the transaction
of sale in respect of dal of legun1es. It was contended in the writ petitions
that merely amending or adding to the list of agricultural produce set out in
the Schedule by itself without anything more would not enable the Market
Committee to levy market fee on the sale of. such agricultural produce
because before levying market fee the agricultural produce has to be notified
as specified agricultural produce by issuing either a notification under Sec. 6
or addition or alteration in exyrcise of the power under Sec. 8 of the Act. It
was fu":"ther contended that after the amendment of the Schedule by the
impugned notification, fresh notification either under Sec 6 or Sec. 8 having
not been issued, the agricultural prod Lice introduced in the Schedule namely,
dal of various legumes have not becon1e specified agricultural produce and
therefore any sale in respect of such agricultural produce even in the Market
Area wi11 not enable the market Committe to levy market fee nor would it
obJige persons or parties to the transaction of sale to pay the same.
The aforesaid contentions found favour with the IJigh Court which
allowed the writ petition5 and quashed the notice issued by the Market
Committee raising the demand for market fee. It further held that till the
agricultural produce under the heading •II Legumes' set out in the Schedule
since the amendment of January 20, 1982 are notified as specifi.e d agricultural
produce, the f\iiarket Committee was not entitled to levy and collect market
fee on the transaction of sale of such agricultural produce.
Jn the appeals to this Court, on the question: whether legume, whcle
grain were notified as a specified agricultural produce within the meaning of
the expression in Sec. 2 (0 of th~ U.P. Krisbi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam
1964 would also comprehend its split folds or parts, commercially called dal
so as to enable the Mandi Samiti to levy market fee under Sec. 17 of the
Act on the transaction of sale of dal of leaumes specified in the Schedule to
the Act.
Allowing the Appeals :
HELD: J. The High Court was in error in holding that the legume
whole grain as set out in the Schedule does not include its split form i.e. dal
and therefore, no n1arket fee was leviable on the transaction of sale of legume
JI
in splitform. [8050]
•
.....
·.fil
,,
i.ivmi SAMIT! v. G\NG< DAL r.iii.L
789
Rumesh Chandra etc. v. State of U.P. etc., [1980] 3 SCR 109, Kawai
Krishna Puri & Anr. y. Stole of Punjob & Ors., [1979]
3 SCR 1217 and State
of Gujarat v. Sakarwala Brothers, [1967] 19 STC 24, referred to.
Mis Ganesh Trading Co. Karna! etc. etc. y. State of Haryana & Anr. etc .• ,
A.LR. \974S.C. 1362 and Babu Ram Jagdish Kumar & Co. etc. etc. v. State of
Punjab & Ors. etc. etc., [1967] 3 SCR 952, in applicable.
Modi Spinning and Weaving Mills Co. Ltd., Modinagar & Ors. etc. v.
State ofU.P. & Anr., [1980] All. L.J.1137, reversed.
A
B
2. The entries under the heading 'legumes' in the Schodule ?f S~c. 2
(a) of the U.P. Kr.shi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964 as it stood prior to
the amendment of January 20, 1982 through the notification issued under
C
Sec 4·A comprehend both the \Vhole grain of legumes and its split part that
is dal. What was implicit has been made explicit and therefore no fresh
notification under Sec. 8 was necessary. [798 D·E]
3. It is an indisputable canon of construction that where an expression is defined in the statute, unless there is anything repugnant ·in the subject
or context, the expression has to be construed as having the same meaning
assigned to it in the dictionary clause of the statute. [798G]
4. The definition of the expression 'agricultural produce' as set out
in Sec. 2 (a) of the Act cannot be construed by resort to decisions under
entirely different statutes such as the Sales Tax Laws to find out whether the
whole grain and split folds constitute the same product or two different and
independ;;nt produ.;ts co.nmercially so r~-::ognised. An1lysing the definition
of the expression it would mean not only those items of produce of agriculture as specified in the Schedule but will also include the admixture of two
or more of such items as also any such i tern in its processed form. [798 F; H]
5. •Agricultural produce' mean a produce of agriculture such as
Gram as s~ecified in the Schedule and would also include Gram in its processed form. Therefore, not only Gram is an agricultural produce but Gram
in its p<ocessed form is equally and agricultural produce. [799B]
6. When it is said in the definition •such items of produce of agriculture as are specified in the Schedule'. it means that not only all those items
of agricultural produce which are set out in the Schedule will constitute
agricultural produce but also the admixture of two or more of such items of
produce of agriculture as set out in the Schedule as well as any such items
of agriculture produce in their processed form. [799B·C]
7. Legislative enactments in the State of Uttar Pradesh are enacted in the
Hindi language and its official and authentic translatirn in English is primarily
simultaneously published. The notification dated April 11, 1978 specified the
legumes therein enumerated as specified agricultural produce for various
D
E
F
G
H
I
A
B
c
D
E
,
•.'
G
..
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(198SJ 1 s.c.R.
Market Areas. The heading under which various legumes are enumerated is
'Dwi Da/iya Utpadan.' This tongue-twister was explained to mean that
legume itself is Dwi Dallya Utpadan i.e. the whole grain is made of two folds.
Ek da/iya grain is without a fold. Dwi Daliya is a grain composed of two
folds and certainly not many folds. On a strict construction, the two dais i.e.
two parts forming the whole grain both are comprehended in the expression
'Dwi Da/lyu Utpadan'. [199G-H; 800A]
8. While enumerating legumes in the Schedule and reproduced in the
1978 notification to make them specified agricultural produce, the farmers
intended to include both the grain as a whole and its split parts the dal.
And
when the agricultural produce enumerated ·in the Schedule such as Gram
including its processed part is reproduced in the notification as Dwi Daliya
Utpadan, the dal of each of the legumes therei1:< mentioned became specified
agricultural produce. [800D-E]
In the instant case, it cannot be said that the respondents-factory
owners not being agricultural producers and not being in search of any protection of the Market Committee could not be subjected to the levy of
market fee. In fact, the primary object of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Adhiniyam 1964 as far as the State of U.P. was concerned was regulation of
sale and purchase of agricultural produce irrespective of the character of the
party to the transaction save and except that as set out in sub-clauses (1) to
(4) of Sec. 17 (iii) (b). It is not a relevant consideration whether the factory
owners need any protection but the real question is whether people dealing
with them need protection. [802F-Hl
9. Redress of a grievance depending upon deciding a disputed question
of fact cannot b.: rendered in this Court when there is want of a pleading in
this behalf and want of a decision by the High Court on the point.
Ramesh Chandra etc. v. State ofU.P. tic., [1980] 3 SCR 104, referred to.
Writ Petitions remitted to the High Court for examining contentions
other than those dealt with by this Court. [807E]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.10072-73 of
1983, 2283/84, 10074-76/83, 2281-82 of 1984, 2284-87 & 2525-27 of
1984
Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 28th January, 9th September, 20th December, 19th Dec. 1983
& 23rd February, 28th March, 1984 of the Allahabad High Court
in c.M.W. Nos. 4275, 4523, 10343, 10228of1981, 6758/83, 2066/81,
12388, 12785, 12400, 12874, 1470, 6681, 1490 of 1983 .• 68 & 1475 of
1984.
•.
•
'
.
MANDI sAJ.irfi v. GANGA DAL MILL (Desai, i.)
791
A. K. Sen, R.P. Bhatt, E. C. Agarwala & V.K. Pandita for the
Appellants.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Y.K. Jain and P.R. Agarwala for the
Respondents in C.A. Nos. 10072-73/84.
F.S. Nariman and D.K. Garg for Respondents in CAs. 2286,
t
A
.. ..
B
-1
3919 & 5342/84.
·'
. ·1
· ··Shanti Bhushan and Pankaj Ka/ra for Respondent in CA •
. 2283/84.
S.N. Kacker, R.K. Jain, Suman Kapur, Ms. Sangeeta Agarwal
. and P.K. Jain, for Respondents in CA. 10076/84.
c
N.C. Talukdar and Ms.' Maya Rao for RR. in CA. 2581 of
fl
1984 •. 1. .
.
D
Sudama Jha and Ms. Maya Rao for RR. in CA. 2525/84.
H.K, Puri for Respondent in c;:As. 10074-75183.
Mrs. Sobha Dikshit for the State of U.P.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
I•
DESAI, J. Whether the whole includes the parts is the core
question. Whether legume, whole grain, when notified as . a
· . . .'specified agricultural produce' within the meaning of the expression
'·
'1
E
I~ '\.-.
in Sec. 2(t) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964
('Act' for short) would also comprehend its split folds or parts,
commercially called dal so as to enable . Mandi Samiti (Market
Committee for convenience of reference) to levy market fee under
I
I ;
. Sec. 17 of the Act on the transaction of sale of dal of legumes
. specified in the schedule to the Act, is the narrow question that falls
to be determined in this group of appeals.
Appellant Market Committee levied market fee on the trans-
. action of sale of dal of various legumes by the respondents, asserting
°that they were specified agricultural produce and the transactions of
sale in respect of them by the respondents in• the Market Area
G
!I
H
A
B
c
D
192
SOPRE~B COORT REPORTS
li98si i s.c.ii.
would be exigible to the levy of market fee.
The respondents contended that they were manufacturing in their factory dal from
various legumes and therefore, not only they were not producers of
agricultural commodity but in view of the description of legumes
set out in the Schedule, the dal of such legumes in the processed
form is not a specified agricultural produce and therefore, a transaction of sale in respect of them at the hands of the respondents
even if it takes place in the Market Area would not permit the
appellant to levy market fee on such transaction and they were not
liable to pay the same. The respondents contend that unless the
agricultural produce specified in the Schedule to the Act is notified
as a specified agricultural produce in respect of a particular Market
Area, the Market Committee having jurisdiction in the Market
Area will not be entitled to levy market fee on the transaction of
sale of such agricultural produce.
In short they say that even if
legumes set out in the Schedule are specified agricultural produce,
the da/ processed therefrom in the factory could not become
specified agricultural produce uni es s it is so specified and therefore,
the Market Committee had no authority to levy market fee on the
transaction of sale of da/.
The respondents approached the High
Court of Allahabad by filing writ petitions under Art. 226 of the
Constitution raising myriad contentions including the one as herein
E
set out.
F
G
The High Court by its judgment dated January 28, 1983 held
that legume in its split form was not the same thing as legume
specified in the Schedule and therefore, in the absence of a specification, da/ of any of the legumes enumerated in the Schedule cannot
be said to be specified agricultural produce and therefore, any
transa;tion of sale in respect of them was not exigible to the levy of
market fee.
In reaching this conclusion, the High Court took note
of the fact that apart from anything else the subsequent conduct of
the Government of U.P. in issuing Notification No. 383/12-5-600
(401)/81 dated January 20, 1982 substituting the entry under the
heading 'II Legumes' a description in the bracket against tile name
of each legume (Saboot Aur Dala Hua) dispelled doubt, if any,
lingering on the subject.
During the pendency of the writ petitions in the High Court,
it appears that the Govt. of U.P. probably out of panic or as contended before us out of abundant caution issued in exercise of the
power conferred by Sec. 4A of the Act the Notification No. 383/12·
·'
•
•
•
•
'
MANDI SAMI'tl v. GANGA DAL MILL (Desai, J.)
5-600( 401)/81 dated January 20, 1982 which reads as under :
"In exercise of the powers conferred upon him uLder
Section
4A
of the U.P. Krishi
Utpadan
Mandi
Adhiniyam, 1964 (U.P. Act No. 25 of 1964) the Governor
is hereby pleased to notify that with effect from the date of
publication in gazette of this Notification, in place of items
mentioned under column (I) under the Heading (legume) in
the Schedule of Section 2(a) the following items shall be
substituted, namely--
Legumes
1. Chana
2.
Matar
3. Arhar
4. Urad
5. Moong
6. Masoor
7. Lobhia (seeds1
8.
Soyabeen
9. Khosari
10. Sanai (seeds)
11. Dhencha (seeds)
12. Gwar
13. Moth
14. Kulthi
Amended Krishi
U tpadan Legume
I. Chana (Saboot Aur Data Hua)
2. Matar (Saboot Aur Dali Hui)
3. Arbar (Saboot Aur Dali Hui)
4.
Urad (Saboot Aur Dali Hui)
5.
Moong (Saboot Aur Dali Hui)
6.
Masoor (Saboot Aur Dali Hui)
7.
Lobhia (Saboot Aur Dali Hui)
8. Soyabeen
9. Khosari (Saboot Aur Dali Hui)
10. Sanai (seeds)
11. Dhencha (seeds)
12. Gwar
13. Moth (Saboot Aur Dali Hui)
14.
Kulthi."
After taking note of this notification, the High Court observed
that by the amendment of the relevant part of the Schedule to the
•
Act, the Government recognised and almost admitted that legumes
whole and legumes split two different commodities and as now by the
notification both have become specified agricultural 'Produce, earlier
only the legume whole grain and not in the split form was the
specified agricultural produce and therefore, till the issue of the
notification the Market Committee was not entitled to levy market
fee on the transaction of sale of dal of various legumes.
After the notification dated January 20, 1982 was issued, a fresh
batc11 of writ petitions were filed challenging both the validity of the
notification as also the eligibility of the Market Committee to levy
A
B
(l
D
E
F
0
B
A
B
c
D
E
F
794
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985] 1 s.c.il.
market fee on the transaction of sale in respect of da/ of legumes.
It was contended that merely amending or adding to the list of
agricultural produce set out in the Schedule by itself without anything more would not enable the Mark-et Committee to levy market
fee on the sale of such agricultural produce because before levying
market fee the agricultural produce has to be notified as specified
agricultural produce by issuing either a notification under Sec. 6 or
addition or alteration in exercise of power under Sec. 8 of the Act.
It was contended that after the amendment of the Schedule by the
impugned notification fresh notification either under Sec. 6 or Soc. 8
having not been issued the agricultural produce introduced in the
Schedule, namely, dal of various legumes have not become specified
agricultural produce since the amendment of the Schedule and
therefore, any sale in respect of such agricultural produce even in
the Market Area will not enable ,the Market Committee to levy
market fee nor would it oblige persons or parties to the transaction
of sale to pay the same. This contention equally found favour with
the High Court. It was held that till the agricultural produce under
the heading 'II Legumes' set out in the Schedule since the amendment of January 20, 1982 are notified as specified agricultural
produce, the Market Committee was not entitled to levy and collect
market fee on the transaction of sale of such agricultural produce.
The High Court accordingly allowed the petitions and quashed the
notice issued by the Market Committee raising the demand for
market fee.
Hence these appeals by special leave.
If the contention raised on behalf of the appellant in the first
batch of appeals is accepted, the judgment of the High Court in the
second batch of appeals will have to be quashed and set aside without anything more. In view of this inter-connection between the
two batches of appeals, they were heard together though one after
the other and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
G
To appreciate the very narrow contention arising in these
appeals, a glance at the relevant provisions of the Act is indispensable.
H
The Act was enacted as its long title shows 'to provide for the
regulation of sale and purchase of agricultural produce and for t~e
establishment, superintendence and control of markets therefore Ill
•
•
•
'
•
•
MANDI SAMIT! v. GANGA DAL MILL (Desai, J.)
795
Uttar Pradesh.' 'Agricultural produce' is defined in Sec. 2(a) as
A
under :
""agricultural produce" means such items of produce
of agriculture, horticulture, viticulture, apiculture, sericulture, pisciculture, animal husbandry or forest as are specified in the Schedule, and includes admixture of two or
more of such items, and also includes any such item in
processed form, and further includes gur, rab, shakkar,
khandsari and jaggery ;"
'Market Area' is defined in Sec. 2(k) to mean 'an area notified
as such under Section 6, or as modified under Section b.' 'Specified
agricultural produce' is defined in Sec. 2(tfto mean 'agricultural produce specified in the notification . under Sec. 6 or as modified
under Section 8.' 'Sub-Market Yard' is defined in Sec. 2(w) to
mean 'a portion of a Market Area, declared as such under Section
7.' Sec. 4-A which was introduced in the Act by U.P. Act 10 01,
1970 conferred power on the State Govt. to amend the Schedule.
It reads as under :
"4-A. The State Government may by notificotion in
the Gazette, add to, amend or omit any of the items of
agricultural produce specified in the Schedule, and thereupon the Schedule shall stand amended accordingly.''
Sec. 5 provides that a declaration of intention to regulate and
control sale and purchase of agricultural produce in any area.
Where the State Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or
expedient in the public interest to regulate the sale and purchase of
any agricultural produce in any area, and for that purpose to
declare that area as a Market Area it may, by notification in the
Gazette, and in such other manner as may be prescribed, declare
its intention so to do, and invite objections against the proposed
declaration. Sec. 6 provides for the declaration of Market Area in
respect of agricultural produce set out in the notification issued
under Sec. 5 after considering the objections. A combined reading
of Section 5 and 6 would show that in order to be an effective
declaration, the notification must set out the Market Area that is its
geographical boundaries as also the agricultural produce in respect
of which the Market Area is so declared. Sec. 7 confers power to
carve out Market Yar<! and Sub-Market Yards in a Market Area.
'
'
-··.
''
'
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
196
SUPREME COURT REPORfS
' [1985] l S.C.R•
Sec. 8 confers power on the State Government to alter Market
Area as also modification of the list of agricultural produce in
respect of each Market Area. If a change in the geographical
limits of a Market Area becomes necessary or addition or omission
in the list of agricultural produce in respect of a Market Area is
desired, Sec. 8 confers power on the State Government by a notifi·
cation to that effect in the Gazette to so alter the Market Area or
modify the list of agricultural produce. Every agricultural produce
set out in notification declaring a Market Area under Sec. 6 or
alterations made under Sec. 8 becomes speoified agricultural produce
for the purposen of the Act. Sec. 9 sets out the effects of a declar·
ation of a Market Area, the principal being that no one within the
Market Area can set up, establish or continue or allowed to be set
up, established or continue, any place for the sale-purchase,
storage etc. of the specified agricultural produce, except under and
in accordance with the conditions of a licec;ce granted by the Committee. Sub-sec. (2) confers power on the Market Committee to
give licence to carry on business as a trader etc. in the Principal
Market Yard or Sub-Market Yard. Sec. 17 enumerates the powers
of the Market Committee which has to be set up for each Market
Area as required by Sec. 12, which inter a/ia includes the power to
levy and collect market fee in the circumstances therein mentioned.
The relevant portion of it reads as under :
"17. A Committee shall, for the Purposes of the Act,
have the power to-
...........................................................................
(iii) levy and collect:
(a)············· ···································
(b) market fee, which shall be payable on transactions of
sale of specified agricultural produce in the market
area at such rates, being not less than one percentum
and not more than one and half percentum of the price
of the agricultural produce so sold, as the State Government may specify by notification, and such fee shall be
realised in the following manner :-
(1) If the produce is sold through a commission agent the
commission agent may realise the market fee from the
purchaser and shall be liable to pay the same to the
Committee
..
•
,.
'
,
MAND\ SAMlTI v. GAl'GA DAL MILL (Desai, J.)
797
if the produce is purchased directly by a trader from a
producer the trader shall be liable to pay the market fee
to the Committee;
(3) if the produce is purchased by a trader from another
trader, the trader selling the produce may realise it from
the purchaser and shall be liable to pay the market fee to
the Committee ; and
(4) in any other case of sale of such produce, the purchaser
shall be liable to pay the market fee to the Committee;
Provided that no market fee shall be levied or collected on
the retail sale of any specified agricultural produce where
such sale is made to the consumer;·········''
A
B
c
The schedule appended to the Act enumerates various species
D
of agricultural produce as required by Sec. (2) (a). Under the
heading "II Legumes' in the Schedule 14 different legumes such as (I)
Gram (2) Peas (3) Arhar (4) Urad etc: are specified for the purpose
of Sec. 2(a) and Sec. 4A.
On the date on which the first batch of writ petitions were
filed in the High Court, the relevant notification under Sec. 5 read
with Sec. 6 provided that with effect
from May 1, 1978 the
agricultural
produce mention in the Schedule 'kha' shall be
included in the list of agricultural produce of the Market Area
mentioned in Schedule 'ka'. Amongst others at plecitum (2)
following entries are to be found :
"(2) Dwi Daliya Utpadan :
(1) Channa (2) Matar (3) Arhar (4) Urad (5) Moong
E
F
(6) Masoor (7) Lobhia (seed)
{8) Soyabeen (9) Sanai
G
(seed) (!OJ Dhencha (seed) (II) Ganwar."
set out in the Schedule which became specified agricultural
produce by being included in the notification dated April 11, 1978
. could only be legume whole grain and not its split portions which
1 s the end product. of a manufacturing procecss. It was said that the
(/al which is obtained by applying a proce~s of manufacture to th~ '• ft
A
B
c
D
E
F
IG
H .H
798
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[198S] I S.C.R
whole grain of legumes is neither an agricultural produce and at
any rate it is not a specified agricultural produce. The High Court
charted an easy course by merely referring to the subsequent noti·
fication dated January 20, 1982 which substituted entry under
heading 'II Legumes' in
the Schedule by putting into bracket
words 'Saboot Aur Dala Hua' and concluded that if an amendment
by a notification became necessary to bring split folds of legnme
in the Schedule, by necessary implication they could not have been
included or deemed ever to have been included in the Scheduie "II
Legumes' prior to the amendment and therefore market fee could
not be levied on the transaction of sale of split folds of legume
dal in a Market Area. We propose for the time being to ignore
this notification and concentrate on the entry in the Schedule as it
stood prior to the notification dated January 20, 1982 and the
definition of the expression 'agricultural produce' to ascertain
whether any of the enumerated legumes in the condition of whole
grain or in the split folds were specified agricultural produce
comprehended with the terminological exactitude described as
Gram, Peas, Arhar Urad etc. In other words, if Gram, Peas, Arhar
Urad etc. is mentioned as specified agricultural produce . in the
notification either under Sec. 5 read with Sec. 6 or under Sec. 8,
would it mean only its whole grain or would it also taken in the
product k~own as dal obtained by splitting the whole grain into
its two folds.
To resolve this controversy, one will have to seek light from
the definition of expression 'agricultural produce' as set out in Sec.
2(a) of the Act and not by a resort to decisions under entirely
different statutes such as the Sales Tax laws to find out whether
the whole grain and its split folds constitute the same product or
two different and independent products commercially so recognised.
It is an indisputable can-on of construction that where an expression
is defined in the statute, unleS5 there is anything repugnant in the
S'jbject or context, the expression has to be construed as having
t~e same meaning assinged to it in the dictionary clause of the
statute. This canon of construction is to well-recognised to necessitate any reference to precedent.
Analysing the definition of the expression 'agricultural
produce', it would mean not only those items of produce of agriculture as are specified in the Schedule, but will also include the
admb;tμr~ of two or more of such items as also any sμc]\ item in, it~
.,
•
•
..
" '
•
1
•
MANDI SAMITI v. GANGA DAL MILL (Desai, J.)
799
processed form, Let us re-write the definition by substitutic:; one
of the items in the Schedule to make explicit what is i!llplicit
therein. Agricultural produce' means a produce of agriculture
such as Gram as specified in the Schedule and would also include
Gram in its processed form. Therefore, not only Gram is an agri·
cultural produce but Gram in its processed form is equally an
agricultural produce. When it is said in the ,definition 'such items
of.produce of agriculture as are specified in the Schedule, it means
that not only all those items of agricultural produce which are
set out in tbe Schedule will constitute agricultural produce but
also the admixture of two or more of such items of produce
of agriculture as set out in the Schedule as well as any such
items of agriculture produce in their processed form.
Suppose
a producer selJs neither Gram nor Peas each by itself but mixes
Gram and Peas, according to the contention canvassed on behalf
of the respondents, this mixture would be not an agricultu·
ral produce. The contention can be negatived by refferring to the
definition which says agricultural produce means such items of
produce of agriculture (omitting the words wMch are not necessary
for the present purpose)"· as are •pecified in the Schedule such as
Gram and Peas as also an admixture of two or more of such items
i.e. admixture of Gram and Peas. A further step can be taken as
flowing from the definition itself. Agricultural produce means such
items of agricultural produce namely, Gram as specified in the
Schedule and it shall include any such items i.e. Gram in its processed
form. Even the respondents did not contend, on the contrary it was
the sheet anchor of their submission that a split legume is obtained
by a manufacturing process of whole grain of legumes, 'Sa boot' as
it is now described, and that dal i. e. the whole grain split into two
folds is its processed form acquired by manufacturing process.
Even on their own submission dal of legume enumerated in tbe
s"chedule is any a~ricultural produce.
This very conclusion can be reached by a slightly different
route. As is well-known, the legislative enactments in the State of
l1.P. are enacted primarily in Hindi language and its official and
authentic translation in English is simultaneously publi'shed. Bear.
ing this in mind, we turn to the notification dated April I J, 1978
specifying legumes therein enumerated as specified agricultural
produce for various Market Areas. The heading under which var·
ious legumes are enumerated is Dwi Daliya Utpadan .' This tongue
twister was explained to 11s to mean that legume itself is Dwi Da/iya
A
B
c,
D
E
F
G
B
c
D
E
F
Q
800
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
( 1985] l S.C.R.
Utpadan i.e. the whole grain is made of two folds. Ek daliya grain
is without a fold. Dwi Daliya is a grain composed of two folds and
certainly not many folds, Concise Oxford Dictionary specifies the
meaning of legume to be fruit, edible part pode, of leguminous
plant; vegitable used for food , 'and leguminous' to mean' like
of the botanical family of pulse. And in common parlance 'pulse'
connotes legume and denotes dal of legume. Reverting however,
to the heading under which legumes are enumerated in 1978
notification, it must be confessed that it clearly connotes the meaning to be given to the whole grain and denotes dal i.e. split folds
as specified agricultural produce. The Hindi protagonists used the
expression 'Dwi Dalia Utpadan' meaning thereby double folded
grain called Gram, Peas, Arhar, moong, etc. On a strict construction, the two dais i.e. two parts forming the whole grain both are
comprehended in the expression 'Dwi Dalia Utpadan'. Therefore, it is crystal clear that while enumerating legumes in the
Schedule and reproduced in the 1978 notification to make them
specified agricultural produce, the framers ir.te_nded to include
both the grain as a whole and its splits parts the dal. And when
the agricultural produce enumerated in the Schedule such 'its Gram
including its processed part is reproduced in the notification as
Dwi Dalia Utpadan, the da/ of each of the legumes therein men-
. tioned became specified agricultural produce.
It was however, urged tha.t if the legume in the split form is
the same as legume as a whole grain, the Market Committee would
not be entitled to levy any market fee on the transaction of sale
of legume in split form because market fee already having been
once levied in the form of the whole grain, a second levy on the
product is not contemplated by the Act. Reference in this connection was made to the decision in Ramesh Chandra etc. v. State of
U.P. etc.I" in which levy of market fee under the Act by various
Market Committee was challenged on diverse grounds, on such
being that if market fee is oaid on the transaction of sale of paddy
!bough rice is separately enumerated in the Schedule, no market
fee could be !ivied on the transaction of sale of rice. This Court
has observed at page 130 that ,if paddy is purchased in a particular
market area by a rice miller and the same paddy is convertecl into
rice and sold then the rice miller will be ]jable to pay market fee Oil
ff
(I} [1980) 3 S.C.R. 104,
1
•
•
•
•
'
MANOI SAMITI v. GANGA OAL MILL (Desai, J.)
801
his purchase of paddy from the agriculturist-producer under sub·
clause (2) of section 17 (iii) (b). He cannot be asked to pay market
fee over again.under sub-clause (3) in relation to the transaction
of rice. Nor will it be open to the Market Committee to choose
between either of the two in the examplr just given above. Market
fee has to be levied and collected in relation to the transaction of
paddy alone. Reliance was also placed on the observation at page
132 where the court observed 'if Catechu is a product of kbar
trees by some processing, as prima facie it appears to us to be so,
then i'. is plain that market fee can be charged only on the purchase
of khar wood and not on the sale of Catechu.' Reliance was also
placed on M/s Ashok Industries and Ors. v. State of Bihar' and Ors'"
·where similar view appears to have been teken. We fail to see the
significance of this submission in these appeals because this conten·
tion was not canvassed before the High Court and the respondents
merely invited the High Court to decide that dal of legumes enu·
merated in tbe Schedule are not specfied agricultural produce. If
the respondents are entitled to any relief on the view of the matter
taken in Ramesh Chandra's case
they may obtain appropriate
relief, but as has been rightly observed by this Court that redress
of the grievance in this behalf depending upon deciding a disputed
question of fact cannot be rendered here for want of pleading in
this behalf and for want of a decision by the High Court on this
point. Rut on this account it iS not possible to accept the submi·
ssion of the respondent that legume in the split form is not com·
prehended in the Schedule to the Act as well as in the notification
dated April II, 1978.
Mr. Shanti Bhushan for some of the respondents urged that
the respondents have set up their factory for processing whole grain
of legumes into its split folds and the commodity known as dal is
' a well recognised identifiable commercial commodity distinct from
the legume whole grain from which it is derived by a manufacturing
process and as the Act was
en"ct~cl for protecting the interest of
producers of agricultural produce, the factory owners being in no
need of such protection cannot be subjected to the levy of market
fee on the transaction of sale of legume in split form. The submission_ does not commend to us because it proceeds on an erroneous assumption that the Act was primarily enacted for the protection of producers of scheduled agricultural produce. In fact, as
(I) AIR 1979 Patna217.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A•
B
c
D·
E
F
G
802
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1985) ! S C.R.
pointed out earlier, the Act was enacted primarily for the regulation of sale and purchase of agricultural produce and for the
establishment, superintendence and control of markets therefor. In
the Statement of objects and reasons accompanying the Act, it is in
terms stated that the proposed measure to regulate the market in
the State has been designed with a view to achieving the objects
therein enumerated, only one of them being to ensure that the
agricultural producer has his say in the utjlisation of market funds
for the improvement of the market as a whole.
Agricultural
produce bas nowhere been mentioned in the nine objects set out
therein except as mentioned above. On the other hand, the Constitution Bench in Ramesh Chandra's case noticed that the 'Act was
enacted for the development of new market areas and for efficient
data col!ecton and processing of arrivals in the Mandis to enable
the World Bank to give a substantial help for the establishment of
various markets in the State of U.P.' The Act was compared with
similar statutes in force in different States . and a distinguishing
feature was pointed out that in other States the Act is mainly
meant to protect the agriculturist producer from being exploited
when he comes to the Mandis for selling his agricultural produce.
This Court observed in agreement with the High Court that certain
other transactions also have been roped in the levy of market fee
in which both sides are traders and neither side is an agriculturist
and this has been done for the effective implementation of the
scheme of establishments of markets mainly for the benefit of
producers. Approving the observation in Kewal Krishna Puri &
Anr v. Staie of Puniab & Ors.'11 the Court further observed that the
fee realised from the payer has by and large to be spent for his
special benifits and for the benefit of other persons connected with
the transaction of purchase and sale in various Mandis. Therefore,
it cannot be said that the respondents-factory owners not being
agricultural producers and not being in search of any protection of
the Market Committee could not be subjected to the levy of market fee. In fact, the primary object of the Act as far as the State
of U.P. is concerned is regulation of sale and purchase of agricultnral produce irrespective of the character of the party to the
transaction sRve and eJ<cept that character is relevant as set out
in sub-clauses (I) to (4) of Sec. 17 (iii)(b). It is not a relevant
consideration whether the factory owners need any protection but
the real question is whether people dealing with them need proH
<W [197913 s.c.R. 1711.
'A
•
• •
MANDI SAM!Tl v. GANGA DAL MILL (Desai, J.)
803
tection.
Viewed from either angle,
we find no merit in the
submission.
·
Dr. Y.S. Chitale refered to M/s Ganesh Trading Co. Karna/
etc. etc. v. State of Haryana & Anr. etc."l, Babu Ram Jagdish
Kumar and Co. etc. etc. v. State of Punjab
& Ors.etc. etcJ'\
State of Karnataka v. B Raghurama Shetty etc/'l and M/s Laxmi
Chand Bad1 i Narain v. The Commissioner of sales Tax.