Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 – “Ghee” if a “product of livestock”: Held: Yes – The argument that “ghee” is not a product of livestock is baseless, and bereft of any logic – The contrary argument that “ghee” is indeed a product of livestock is logically sound – Livestock has been defined u/s.2(v) of the Act, where Cows and buffalos are the livestock – Undisputedly, “ghee” is a product of milk which is a product of the livestock – Reasoning adopted by the Full Bench of the High Court that ‘Ghee’ is derived out of ‘milk’ by undergoing a process, yet it still remains a product of livestock, for the purposes of the Act and payment of “market fee”, agreed with – Further, there was nothing wrong in the 1994 notification and the challenge to the notification was rightly turned down by the Full Bench of the High Court – The argument of the appellant that the procedure given u/s.3 of the Act was not followed, is not correct – There is a basic difference between the notification which has to be made u/s.3 of the Act and the notification made subsequently u/s.4 of the Act – Majority opinion in the Full Bench concluded that procedural compliance is only necessary when there is a declaration or later a merger/de-merger of a notified area and there is no requirement of following any particular procedure while issuing a notification u/s.4 (4) of the Act notifying/de-notifying any already notified products for the purpose of regulation by any respective Agricultural Market Committee – Thus, a prior hearing or prior publication of the draft notification is not a requirement u/s.4 of the Act, since the notification of the year 1994 is a notification u/s.4 and not of s.3 of the Act – Therefore, the argument that the process u/s.3, was not followed is totally misconceived – No prior process was required to be followed as contemplated u/s.3 of the Act for working the scheme u/s.4 of the Act – Majority decision of the High Court upheld. [Paras 10 ,11 and 14]
Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 – Issue as regards market fee – 1994 notification had an effect which made ‘Ghee’ a product that could be regulated under provisions of the Act, Market Committees were empowered to levy fee on the sale and purchase of ‘ghee’ as per s.12 of the Act:
Held: Appellants’ argument that the Market Committees did not provide any facilities, rejected – Appellants availed the facility given by the Market Committee and hence are liable to pay the fee – There may also be a question of unjust enrichment here – Thus, this market fee should be paid as well – Appellants’ prayer that respondent Market Committees should be restrained from collecting market fees prior to the date of the High Court Judgment not accepted. [Para 13]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.