Agricultural Produce Market Committee Vs Biotor Industries Ltd.

Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3130-3131 OF 2008

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE ……APPELLANT

Versus

BIOTOR INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. ….RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

These appeals have been directed against the common

judgment and order dated 24.04.2007 passed by the High

Page 2

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal

Nos. 139 of 2006 and 195 of 2006 in Special Civil

Application No. 13606 of 2005 with Civil Application

No. 514 of 2006 and Civil Application No. 1380 of 2006

filed by the appellant-Agricultural Produce Market

Committee, Baroda (for short “APMC”) as it is aggrieved

by the dismissal of its Letters Patent Appeal No.195 of

2006. The High Court allowed Letters Patent Appeal

No. 139 of 2006 preferred by the respondent-Company.

Both the Letters Patent Appeals were filed against the

order dated 22.12.2005 of learned single Judge passed

in Special Civil Application No.13606 of 2005 whereby

the learned single Judge substantially set aside the

order dated 19.4.2005 of the Revisional Authority and

partly allowed the application filed by the APMC by

framing questions of law.

2. The brief facts of the case are stated below to

appreciate the rival claims of the parties and to find

out as to whether the appellant-APMC is entitled for

the relief sought for in these appeals:

2

Page 3

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

The appellant-APMC was constituted pursuant to

Notification issued on 14.1.1958 under the provisions

of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939

and the area of Baroda city and Baroda Taluk of Baroda

District was declared as the market area for the

purpose of Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act,

1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The

respondent-Company, manufacturing castor oil from out

of the castor seeds purchased by it comes under the

jurisdiction of the market area of the APMC and

therefore, it is liable for paying the market fees/cess

for the trading activities carried out by it in the

market area. APMC levied market fee on the castor seeds

bought by the Company on the basis that castor seeds

were brought within the market area of APMC. The

respondent-Company contested the said levy by filing

Revision Application No. 2 of 2005 under Section 48 of

the Act before the State Government contending that

castor seeds were brought into the market area of the

APMC, Baroda as provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 48

3

Page 4

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965

(for short “the Rules”) and no fees are leviable on agricultural produce brought from outside the market

area into the market area for use therein by the

industrial concern situated in the market area. The

State Government vide its order dated 19.04.2005

decided the Revision Application No. 2 of 2005 in

favour of the respondent-Company by setting aside the

order dated 27.12.2004 issued by the APMC levying the

market fee.

3. The APMC filed a Special Application No. 13606 of

2005 under Articles 226, 14 & 19 of the Constitution of

India before the High Court against the said order of

the State Government. The learned single Judge of the

High Court after hearing the parties at length partly

allowed the said application holding that the sale of

the castor seeds in question took place within the

market area of APMC, Baroda, therefore, APMC was right

in levying the market fee on the castor seeds purchased

by the respondent within the market area of APMC. The

4

Page 5

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

learned single Judge in respect to exemption clause in

sub-rule 2 of Rule 48 held that the said exemption was

available to the agricultural produce brought by the

industrial concern itself from outside the market area

into the market area of APMC and the exemption was not

available where the castor seeds were bought within the

market area by the seller and sold to the industrial

concern within the market area. As such the learned

single Judge upheld the plea of APMC for levy of market

fee on the castor seeds purchased by the respondent-

Company. In respect to the levy of market fee on de-

oiled cake by APMC the learned single Judge accepted

the contention urged on behalf of the respondent-

Company and held that de-oiled cake could not be

treated as oil cake, and therefore, it was not eligible

for levy of market fee since it was not mentioned in

the Schedule. Both the respondent-Company as well as

the APMC being aggrieved by the judgment and order

dated 22.12.2005 of the learned single Judge preferred

Letters Patent Appeal No.139 of 2006 and Letters Patent

5

Page 6

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

Appeal No. 195 of 2006 respectively. The Division Bench

of the High Court allowed the appeal preferred by the

respondent-Company and dismissed the appeal preferred

by the APMC and stated that as soon as the agricultural

produce, namely, castor seeds, bought by the

representatives of the Company, is brought from outside

the market area into the market area, after payment of

octroi on such produce in their capacity as owner of

the goods, the same would be treated as completion of

sale outside the jurisdiction of the market area. The

Division Bench of the High Court, therefore, held that

the collection of market fees from the respondent-

Company by APMC is contrary to the provisions of the

Rules, namely, Rule 48, sub-rule (2) of the Rules,

which grants exemption to agricultural produce brought

from outside into market area by the industrial unit

for its own use. On the second issue, the High Court held that the by-product, namely, de-oiled cake

contains less than 1% oil and is not notified in the

Schedule as per Section 2(i) of the Act and hence, the

6

Page 7

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

above product being totally different from oil cake,

there is no liability upon the respondent-Company to

pay the market fees. Hence, the present Civil Appeals.

4. It is the case of the APMC that on 31.3.2004, the

Director of APMC, Baroda and Rural Finance, Gujarat

State, in exercise of the power vested in him under the Act, issued Notification including castor seeds and

castor cake in the regulated agricultural produces of

APMC, Baroda. On 19.4.2004 the Notification issued by the APMC, Baroda through its Director was published in

the daily newspaper intimating that the trading of

those produces is liable for paying of market fees/cess

to the APMC, Baroda. On 28.6.2004 the APMC issued

notices to the respondent-Company asking it to produce

the accounts for the period 19.4.2004 to 30.11.2004 in

respect of the goods being used in the mill and further

asked to obtain license from Market Committee for the

year 2004-2005. The respondent-Company failed to submit

the accounts and further failed to obtain license

within the stipulated period as mentioned in an earlier

7

Page 8

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

letter dated 28.6.2004, and therefore, the APMC sent

the reminder to the respondent-Company and asked to

comply with the direction. Vide letter dated 7.12.2004

the respondent-Company submitted monthly statement for

the period 19.4.2004 to 30.11.2004 in respect of the

purchases of castor seeds made by the Company. APMC on

the basis of the details provided by the respondent-

Company prepared a statement showing the names of the

suppliers, weight, price, quantity and amount paid by

the company as per the weighment made by the Company

which clearly shows that as per bills, different

parties were selling castor seeds to the respondent-

Company for which weighment was done at the mill site

in the market area Baroda and payment made to the

parties as per the weighment done by the respondent-

Company. On 27.12.2004 on the basis of statement

submitted by the respondent-Company, the APMC assessed

the market cess for the purchases of the castor seeds

in the market area in respect of the same being used

for processing and converting them into castor oil and

8

Page 9

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

oil cake and on the basis of assessment the respondent-

Company was directed to pay the market cess of

1,27,46,349.38 within a period of 10 days.

5. Being aggrieved by the said assessment made by APMC

on 27.12.2004, the respondent-Company preferred

Revision Application No. 2 of 2005 under Section 48 of

the Act before the State of Gujarat on 05.01.2005

challenging the decision of the APMC directing it to

pay the market cess as per its letter dated 27.12.2004.

To the said Revision Application, APMC filed its reply

on 23.01.2005. The respondent-Company filed rejoinder

on 23.02.2005 to the reply filed by the APMC. The

Deputy Secretary, (Appeal) allowed the Revision

Application No. 2 of 2005 by its cryptic order dated

19.04.2005 and set aside the order dated 27.12.2004

passed by APMC. It is the case of the APMC that the

Revisional Authority erroneously arrived at the

conclusion that Rule 48(1) is not applicable and

wrongly held that Rule 48(2) was applicable to the fact

situation and further wrongly held that no market fee

9

Page 10

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

is to be paid by the respondent-Company on the de-oiled

cake.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Revisional

Authority dated 19.4.2005 in Revision Application No. 2

of 2005 of the Revisional Authority, the APMC preferred

Civil Application No. 13606 of 2005 before the learned

single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat. The learned

single Judge after hearing the parties vide its order

dated 22.12.2005 set aside the order of revision in so

far as the levy of market fee on the castor seeds is

concerned holding that the sale did take place within

the market area and therefore APMC was authorized to

charge fee from the respondent-Company for such

purchase and partly allowed the application. However,

the learned single Judge, with respect to the levy of

fee on the de-oiled cake which was sold by the

respondent-Company held that it is the by-product in

the course of manufacturing of castor oil and

therefore, it is not an agricultural produce and not

liable to levy of market fee.

10

Page 11

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated

22.12.2005, the respondent-Company filed Letters Patent

Appeal No. 139 of 2006 on 18.1.2006 before the Division

Bench of the Gujarat High Court challenging the

findings of learned single Judge that market fee is

exigible on the purchase of castor oil seeds by the

industrial concern. The APMC also being aggrieved by

the said order dated 22.12.2005 of learned single Judge

filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 195 of 2006 for

rejecting of claim of APMC, Baroda for market fees/cess

on de-oiled cake. The Division Bench of the High Court

on 24.4.2007 after hearing the parties allowed the

appeal of the respondent-Company and dismissed the

appeal of the APMC, Baroda after setting aside the

order of the learned single Judge holding that Rule

48(2) is applicable and that the castor seeds were

brought from outside the market area. The Division

Bench upheld the rejection of the Special Civil

Application No. 13606 of 2005 filed by the APMC, Baroda

not accepting the case pleaded by it that market fee is

11

Page 12

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

levied on de-oiled cake which is a by-product sold by

it and is not exigible goods as it is not an

agricultural produce. Aggrieved by the common judgment,

present appeals are filed.

8. On the basis of the legal grounds urged in these

appeals questioning the correctness of the findings and

reasons recorded by the Division Bench of the High

Court on both the points which have been formulated by

it, the following points would arise for the

consideration of this Court in these appeals:-

1) Whether the APMC, Baroda is liable to

claim the market fee on the castor

seeds purchased by the respondent-

Company on the plea that the same

were purchased within the market

area of APMC, Baroda which castor

seeds are used by the said

industrial concern for manufacture

of castor oil within the market area

of APMC, Baroda?

12

Page 13

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

2) Whether purchase of the castor seeds for

use of the respondent industrial

concern for manufacturing castor oil

falls within Rule 48(2) of the Rules

to get exemption from payment of

market fee?

3) Whether the Division Bench was justified

in setting aside the finding of fact

recorded by the learned single

Judge, holding that the castor seeds

purchased by the respondent-Company

are within the market area of APMC?

4) Whether the Division Bench is justified

in recording the finding on point

No.2 in connection with LPA No. 195

of 2006 that the respondent concern

is not liable to pay any market fee

on the de-oiled cakes sold by it

which are stated to be the by-

product in the course of

13

Page 14

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

manufacturing castor oil which is

not one of the items enumerated in

the Schedule to the Act and

notification issued by the

Directorate?

5) What order?

Answer to Point Nos. 1 to 3

9. The point Nos. 1 to 3 are answered together as they

are inter-related with each other by assigning the

following reasons:

It would be necessary for this Court to refer to

the definition of ‘Agricultural Produce’ under Sections

2(i) and provisions relating to levy of market fee

under Section 28 of the Act and under Rule 48(1) of the

Rules for the purpose of appreciating the factual

matrix with reference to the rival legal contentions

urged on behalf of the parties:-

“2(i)-“agricultural produce” means all produce, whether processed or not, of agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry, specified in the Schedule.

14

Page 15

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

Section 28: The market committee shall, subject to the provisions of the rules and the maxima and minima from time to time prescribed levy and collect fees on the agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area:

Provided that the fees so levied may be collected by the Market Committee through such agents as it may appoint.

Rule 48: Market fees:- (1) The market committee shall levy and collect fees on agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area at such rate as may be specified in the by-laws subject to the following minima and maxima vis.,

(1) rates when levied ad valorem shall not be less than 30 paise and shall not exceed 2 (two) per hundred rupees.

(2) Rates when levied in respect of cattle, sheep or goat shall not be less than 25 paise per animal and shall not exceed 4 per anmimal.

Explanation- For the purposes of this Rule a sale of agricultural produce shall be deemed to have taken place in a market area if it has been weighed or measured or surveyed or delivered in case of cattle in the market area for the purpose of sale, notwithstanding the fact that the property in the agricultural produce has by reason of such sale passed to a person in a place outside the market area.

15

Page 16

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

(2) No fee shall be levied on agricultural produce brought from outside the market area into the market area for use therein by the industrial concerns situated in the market area of for export and, in respect of which declaration has been made and a certificate has been made and a certificate has been obtained in Form V:-

Provided that if such agricultural produce brought into the market are for export is not exported or removed therefrom before the expiry of twenty days from the date on which it was so brought, the market committee shall levy and collect fees on such agricultural produce from the person bringing the produce into the market area at such rates as may be specified in the by-laws subject to the maximum and minimum specified in sub-rule (i):

Provided that no fee shall be payable on a sale or purchase to which sub-section (3) of Section 6 applies.”

10. It is an undisputed fact that the respondent-

Company is an industrial concern which has been

undertaking manufacture of castor oil out of the castor

seeds which are declared as agricultural produce in the

16

Page 17

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

Schedule to the Act vide notification issued by the

Directorate of APMC, Baroda.

11. It is the case of the respondent-Company that the

demand and assessment made and levying the market fee

on the castor seeds for the period from 19.04.2004 to

30.11.2004 is erroneous as castor seeds were purchased

from outside the market area of APMC, Baroda and the

same were brought for the use of the industrial concern

which is situated within the market area of APMC,

Baroda for the purpose of using the same for

manufacturing of the oil. In this regard, the APMC has

called upon the respondent-Company to produce the

accounts for the period 19.04.2004 to 30.11.2004 in

respect of the goods being used in the mill and was

further asked to obtain license from the Market

Committee for the year 2004-2005. On 07.12.2004, the

respondent-Company submitted monthly statement for the

aforesaid period in respect of the purchases made of

castor seeds by the company. The APMC on the basis of

details provided by the respondent-Company prepared the

17

Page 18

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

statement showing the names of the suppliers,

weighment, quantity of the agricultural produce goods

purchased and amount paid by the company to its trader

as per the weighment made by the company. According to

the committee, the purchases made by the company

clearly show, as per the bills issued to different

parties for castor seeds sold to the respondent-

Company, that the weighment of castor seeds was made at

mill site in Baroda and payment was made to the parties

as per the weighment done by the respondent-Company.

Therefore, on the basis of the assessment, the

respondent-Company was directed to pay the market cess

of 1,27,46,349.38 vide its order dated 27.12.2004. The

respondent-Company aggrieved by the said assessment

order preferred Revision Application No. 2 of 2005

under Section 48 of the Act before the State of Gujarat

questioning the correctness of the assessment order

made by the APMC. The Deputy Secretary (Appeal) after

hearing the parties passed a cryptic order dated

19.04.2005 by allowing the Revision Application and

18

Page 19

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

setting aside the order of assessment of the market

Committee dated 27.12.2004. While allowing the Revision

Application, the Revisional Authority arrived at the

conclusion that Rule 48(1) of the Rules is not

applicable and held that Rule 48(2) will be applicable

to the fact situation. The correctness of the same was

challenged before the learned single Judge of the High

Court of Gujarat by filing a petition under Article 226

of the Constitution i.e. Special Civil Application No.

13606 of 2005.

12. The learned single Judge after giving opportunity

to the respondent-Company and hearing both the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the parties has held

that castor seeds have been bought within the market

area of APMC, therefore, sub-rule (1) of Rule 48 is

applicable to the fact situation and not sub-rule (2)

of Rule 48 upon which reliance was placed by the

respondent-Company’s counsel. In arriving at the said

conclusion the learned single Judge has referred to the

factual aspects with reference to certain documents

19

Page 20

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

such as invoices, bill receipts etc. exchanged between

the respondent-company and its suppliers of castor

seeds. The bill issued by one Manish Trading Company of

Naroda, Ahmedabad dated 03.05.2004 for supply of 150

bags of castor seeds weighing 75 kilos each was

examined. The rate charged was 305/- per 100 kg. The

total quantity shown was 112.50 quintals and the total

amount claimed was 1,71,562/-. In the said bill dated

03.05.2004, it was indicated that payment was yet to be

made. At page 28 to the compilation, there is a

purchase voucher/remittance note issued by the

respondent-Company. It is not in dispute that the said

purchase voucher/remittance note pertains to the same

consignment transported by the Manish Trading Company

under the bill dated 03.05.2004. The purchase voucher

indicates that the quantity of the castor seeds

received was short by 37.50 kilos. Weight of bags of

150 kilos was also deducted from the quantity of castor

seeds. The agreed rate of 305/- for 100 kilos remained

constant and the respondent-Company therefore agreed to

20

Page 21

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

remit a total amount of 1,70,991/- to the Manish

Trading Company referred to supra. To the query from

the court, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the company, on instructions, made submissions that

consignments were received from the sellers within the

market area for the purpose of finding out shortfall or

pilferage and the payment is made to the extent of

actual quantity received. The learned single Judge has

also referred to the total quantity of castor seeds

weighing 112.50 quintals which was transported to the

respondent-Company by Manish Trading Company and it had

made payment after weighing consignment and after

finding out the correct weight of the castor seeds

received by it.

13. On the basis of the said material facts the learned

single Judge arrived at the conclusion that the

respondent-Company placed order for purchase of castor

seeds from its suppliers from outside the market area

but no payment was immediately made for the same. On

the demand of the respondent-Company, the quantity of

21

Page 22

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

castor seeds so requisitioned by it was transported by

the supplier which was received by it within the market

area. It is an undisputed fact that the consignment so

received was weighed by the Company within the market

area. Thereafter, on finding out the exact weight of

castor seeds received by it, the payment at the agreed

rate was made by the Company to the supplier.

Therefore, the learned single Judge came to the

conclusion on the basis of appreciation of the

aforesaid facts and held that the sale was not effected

till the consignment was received by the respondent-

Company and the same was weighed within the market

area. The learned single Judge has rightly rejected

the assertion made by the learned counsel on behalf of

the Company holding that in case of shortfall or loss

or damage during transport, the seller could claim

damage from the transporter and that would further

demonstrate that the respondent-Company did not become

owner of the goods till it took the physical delivery

thereof, weighing the same and satisfying itself about

22

Page 23

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

the quantity received by it. It was held that it was

not a mere formality to find out the quantity by it but

it has the essential element of making payment

depending on the extent of quantity received and in

case of any drastic shortfall in the quantity, the

issue would be between the supplier and the

transporter. Further finding was recorded that if

against the quantity of 100 quintals of castor seeds

supplied by the trader, the respondent-Company received

only half of it on account of loss, damage or

pilferage, the company would make payment only for such

quantity leaving it for the trader to recover the

damages from the transporter. There would also be a

case where on account of some untoward and unforeseen

circumstances, such as natural calamity or theft, the

respondent-Company did not receive the full quantity of

castor seeds, the payment shall be made only for the

quantity received by it and not for the entire quantity

to be supplied by the trader. The learned single Judge

has further rightly recorded the finding of fact that

23

Page 24

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

when the castor seeds reach the market area, it was

weighed by the Company and payment thereof was agreed

to be made to the tune of quantity received and till

then the castor seeds continue to be in the ownership

of the seller. The Company becomes the owner of the

property only once the exact weight of the castor seeds

was ascertained and purchase voucher was obtained. The

learned single Judge rightly held that APMC is

justified in contending that the sale of castor seeds

did take place within the market area and the appellant

was authorized to charge fees from the respondent-

Company for such purchase. Therefore, the learned

single Judge held that the castor seed was bought by

the respondent-Company within the market area of APMC,

Baroda and therefore Rule 48(1) of the Rules is

applicable to the fact situation and not Rule 48(2) as

contended by the counsel. The said conclusion was

arrived at after referring to the provisions of

Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930

and the Privy Council judgment in Hoe Kim Seing v.

24

Page 25

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

Maung Ba Chit1. Sections 19, 20 and 21 of Sale of Goods Act are extracted hereunder :-

“19. Property passes when intended to pass.- (1) Where there is a contract for the

sale of specific or ascertained goods the property in them is transferred to the buyer at such time as the parties to the contract intend it to be transferred.

(2) For the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the parties regard shall be had to the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties and the circumstances of the case.

(3) Unless a different intention appears, the rules contained in Section 20 to 24 are rules for ascertaining the intention of the parties as to the time at which the property in the goods is to pass to the buyer.

20. Specific goods in a deliverable state.- Where there is an unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods in a deliverable state, the property in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made, and it is immaterial whether the time of payment of the price or the time of delivery of the goods, or both, is postponed.

21. Specific goods to be put into a deliverable state.- Where there is a contract for the sale of specific goods and the seller is bound to do something to the goods for the

1 AIR 1935 PC 182

25

Page 26

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

purpose of putting them into a deliverable state, the property does not pass until such thing is done and the buyer has notice thereof.”

The above judgment of the Privy Council is referred to

by this Court in the decision of Agricultural Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Limited2 wherein the learned single Judge rightly extracted the

following paragraph from the said judgment and it is

worthwhile to extract the same hereunder :-

“40. In order that Section 20 is attracted, two conditions have to be fulfilled :

(i) the contract of sale is for specific goods which are in a deliverable state; and

(ii) the contract is an unconditional contract. If these two conditions are satisfied, Section 20 becomes applicable immediately and it is at this stage that it has to be seen whether there is anything either in the terms of the contract or in the conduct of the parties or in the circumstances of the case which indicates a contrary intention. This exercise has to be done to give effect to the opening words, namely, “Unless a different intention appears” occurring in Section 19(3). In Hoe Kim Seing v.

2 AIR 1997 SC page 2502

26

Page 27

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

Maung Ba Chit, it was held that intention of the parties was the decisive factor as to when the property in goods passes to the purchaser. If the contract is silent, intention has to be gathered from the conduct and circumstances of the case.”

14. Therefore, the learned single Judge on the basis of

documents which are all admitted documents came to the

right conclusion and held that the castor seeds were

bought by the respondent-Company within the market

area. Therefore, APMC has rightly made assessment of

market fee and levied the same as per Section 28 of the

Act, which assessment order has been erroneously set

aside by the Revisional Authority without proper

appreciation of facts and applying the relevant

provisions namely, Section 28 and Rule 48(1) and came

to the erroneous conclusion and held that the goods

bought were brought from outside the market area for

the purpose of manufacturing oil by the Company in its

factory. Therefore, the contention that these are not

exigible, was rightly set aside by the learned single

27

Page 28

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

Judge and it was held that the respondent-Company is

liable to pay market fee which is cess on the purchase

of castor seeds, justifying the claim of the APMC.

The order dated 22.12.2005 was questioned by the

Company filing Letters Patent Appeal No.139 of 2006 and

that order was erroneously set aside by the Division

Bench by answering the point No.1 in favour of the

Company after referring to Rule 48(2) and erroneously

applying the aforesaid judgments. The learned single

Judge rightly placed strong reliance on the said

judgment referred to supra and came to the right

conclusion and held that the sale of goods of castor

seeds is within the market area of APMC. The learned

Division Bench on the other hand, further placed strong

reliance upon Rule 48(2) by placing reliance upon Form

No. V of the Rules, which is the Form of declaration

and certificate produced by the Company which were

found from pages 79 to 86 which are totally irrelevant

for the purpose of finding out whether the goods i.e.

28

Page 29

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

the castor seeds were bought by the Company within the

market area of APMC or not.

15. The factual matrix is supported by the documents

produced at Annexure ‘F’ to the Special Civil

Application No. 13606 of 2005 which are the documents

of the respondent-Company which have been extensively

referred to by the learned single Judge in his judgment

at para 11 to come to the conclusion holding that the

castor oil seeds were bought by the respondent-Company

within the market area of APMC and, therefore, he has

rightly held that Rule 48(2) is not applicable to the

fact situation as claimed by the respondent-Company and

the reliance placed upon Form No. V which is the Form

of declaration and certificate obtained from the APMC

seeking exemption from payment of market fee on the

castor seeds brought by it from outside APMC area, is

contrary to the material evidence on record and

therefore, the Division Bench has gravely erred in

reversing the finding of fact recorded by the learned

single Judge on proper appreciation of undisputed

29

Page 30

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

material evidence on record and recorded the finding of

fact with reference to Sections 19, 20 and 21 of the

Sale of Goods Act and the judgment of Privy Council

referred to supra which has been referred to by this

Court in the Shalimar Works Ltd. case (supra) wherein the learned single Judge rightly came to the conclusion

that the castor seeds were purchased by the Company in

the market area for the relevant period in question in

respect of which the assessment order was passed

levying the market fee and directing the Company to pay

the same was legal and valid. The same came to be

erroneously set aside by the Revisional Authority

without proper application of mind and law to the fact

situation and the same was then set aside by the

learned single Judge of the High Court. The said

findings of the learned single Judge have been

erroneously set aside by the learned Division Bench at

the instance of the respondent-Company in LPA No.139 of

2006. Therefore, we have to hold that the said finding

of the Division Bench in reversing the legal and valid

30

Page 31

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

finding of fact recorded by the learned single Judge on

proper appreciation of facts and undisputed evidence on

record and rightly applying the provisions of the Sale

of Goods Act referred to supra and Rule 48(1) is

erroneous. Therefore, we have to set aside the said

order passed in LPA No. 139 of 2006 and restore the

order of the learned single Judge passed in special

civil application No. 13606 of 2005 and allow the C.A.

No. 3130 of 2008.

Answer to Point No. 4

16. The point No. 4 is answered against the APMC

upholding the order of the learned single Judge

affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in

dismissing the Letters Patent Appeal No. 195 of 2006 of

the appellant by assigning the following reasons :-

It is an undisputed fact that oil cake is included

in the Schedule as an agricultural produce which is

exigible agricultural produce in terms of section 2(1)

(i)of the Act. Sub-rule (iv) therein contains oil

31

Page 32

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

seeds. Item No. 8 therein is castor seed and Item No.

11 therein is oil cakes.

The oil cake is the exigible agricultural produce

for the purpose of levying market fee upon such

produce. On the basis of the factual and rival

contentions and on the basis of material evidence

produced by the parties the learned single Judge has

arrived at the finding held at paragraph 23 with regard

to the process undertaken by the respondent-Company for

extraction of castor oil from the castor seeds

purchased by it. The by-product which is produced by

the respondent-Company is de-oiled cake which contains

less than 1% of castor oil and castor seeds have to

undergo a complex process so as to extract maximum

possible oil out of it. At the first stage, after

cleaning and separating raw seeds from husk etc. the

castor seeds are crushed through mechanical devices to

extract oil from the same. After the mechanical process

which is involved in extracting substantial amount of

oil in the oil cake, the residual product is the de-

32

Page 33

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

oiled cake which is sold in the market. The same does

not fall under the head of oil cake. The process which is adopted for the purpose of getting the said by-

product of de-oiled cake has been extensively referred

to in the paragraph 23 of the order of the learned

single Judge and it is worthwhile to extract the same

hereunder:-

“23.The process undertaken by respondent no.2 for extraction of castor oil from the castor seeds purchased by it is not seriously in dispute. The fact that ultimately by-product which respondent no.2 claims to be de-oiled cake which the respondent no.2 sells in the market and on which the petitioner is seeking to levy market fee contains less than 1% castor oil is also not seriously in dispute. The respondent no.2 has explained the complex process through which the castor seeds are made to undergo so as to extract maximum possible oil out of it. At the first stage after cleaning and separating raw seeds from husk etc., the castor seeds are crushed through mechanical devices to extract oil from the same. This mechanical process would obviously leave substantial amount of oil in the oil cake which may come into existence after extraction of oil. If this residual product was sold by respondent no.2 in the market, same would squarely fall under the head of oil cake. To that extent there is no serious dispute raised by the respondent no.2 also.

33

Page 34

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

However, respondent no.2 does not sale the oil cake which comes into existence by extracting oil from castor seeds through the above mentioned mechanical process. The oil cake so produced is made to undergo further extensive sophisticated and complex process by which instead of leaving 10% oil contents in the oil cake, the percentage of residue of the oil is brought down to less than 1%. By sophisticated means of operation, the wastage of oil is minimised and the oil extraction percentage is improved. Ultimately therefore, final by- product which comes into existence and which is sold by the respondent no.2 in the market is de-oiled cake having less than 1% oil contents. It can thus be seen that oil cake and de-oiled cake are two separate products. By very nature of terminology used for both products it would indicate that oil cake would contain the residue of oil seeds which would also include some percentage of oil. It is only when almost entirely the oil cake is devoid of oil contents that it is labeled as de-oiled cake. Gujarat Sales Tax Act also takes cognizance of two different products namely oil cake and de-oiled cake. I am only drawing further support from these entries contained in Gujarat Sales Tax Act and not for the purpose of interpretation of the term so defined in the said Act. As noted said Act does not define the term oil cake. From the available material on record, such as difference in the contents of oil in oil cake and de-oiled cake, cognizance of different terms namely oil cake and de- oiled cake in the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, the difference in the process of oil extraction which would lead to by-product

34

Page 35

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

of the oil cake and de-oiled cake, the certificate produced on record by the respondent no.2 indicating the difference of percentage of oil contents in oil cake and de-oiled cake, it can be seen that two are independent, separate and distinct products and so understood in common parlance as well. The term “oil cake” contained in the Schedule therefore, in my opinion would not include deoiled cake. The attempt on the part of the petitioner- Agriculture Produce Market Committee to levy market fees on sale and purchase of such de-oiled cake in my opinion is not permissible. Schedule to the Act specifies oil cake as one of the agricultural produces on which market fee can be charged. In view of my conclusion, that term oil cake does not include deoiled cake, I find that petitioner is not authorised to charge market fees on the de- oiled cake sold by the respondent no.2. The difference in process which would lead to obtaining oil cake and de-oiled cake was also noticed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of A.P. and others v. M/s. Modern Proteins ltd.3 on which reliance was placed by the learned advocate for the respondent no.2. It was noted that groundnut seeds obtained after the process of decortication are of high grade quality, rich in proteins but free from harmful materials processed in the expeller and the outcome is groundnut oil and groundnut oil cake. The groundnut oil cake again is pressed through the solvent in which “food hexane” is sprayed resultantly groundnut oil and groundnut de-oiled cakes are obtained.”

3 1994 Supp (2) SCC 496

35

Page 36

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

17. Further reference was made to the Gujarat Sales

Tax Act wherein the oil cake and de-oiled cake are

considered to be two different products from the

entries contained in the said Act and the Schedule. The

said entries are referred to for the purpose of

interpretation of the terms so defined in the said Act.

The term oil cake is not defined in the APMC Act and

further on the basis of the available material on

record which elaborates the difference in the contents

of oil in oil cake and de-oiled cake, cognizance of

different terms namely, oil cake and de-oiled cake in

the Gujarat Sales Tax Act, difference in the process of

oil extraction which would lead to by-product of the

oil cake and de-oiled cake, we have to hold that de-

oiled cake is a completely different product than oil

cake. Also we have to refer to the judgment of this

Court in the case of State of A.P. and Ors. v. Modern

Proteins Ltd.4 on which strong reliance was placed by the respondent-Company wherein in the said case, it was 4 (1994) Supp (2) SCC 496

36

Page 37

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

noted that the groundnut seeds obtained after the

process of decortication are of high grade quality,

rich in proteins but free from harmful materials

processed in the expeller and the outcome is groundnut

oil and groundnut oil cake. The groundnut oil cake

again is pressed through the solvent in which “food

hexane” is sprayed resultantly groundnut oil and

groundnut de-oiled cakes are obtained. On the basis of

the said decision and applying it to the fact situation

on hand with regard to the process adopted for

obtaining by-product of de-oiled cake, it is clear that

it is different from the oil cake as it contains oil

less than 1% and it is not included in the Schedule for

the purpose of charging market fee, therefore, the

learned single Judge accepting the case against levying

the market fee on the de-oiled cake, rejected the

prayer in this regard in Special Civil Application No.

13606 of 2005. The same was questioned in the Letters

Patent Appeal filed by the APMC that has been examined

by the Division Bench with reference to rival legal

37

Page 38

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

contentions and it has answered the said point against

the APMC by extracting paragraph No. 23 from the

judgment of the learned single Judge.

18. The by-product obtained out of the manufacturing

process is not oil cake but is de-oiled cake after

undergoing the process which would lead to obtaining

de-oiled cake. After noticing the judgment of the

Supreme Court in the case of Modern Proteins Ltd. (supra), the learned single Judge came to the

conclusion that de-oiled cake containing less than 1%

oil is not mentioned in the Schedule as per Section

2(1)(i) of the APMC Act as ‘agricultural produce’ by

the authority and further held that the above produce

is totally different from the oil cake. Therefore, no

market fee can be levied by the APMC to be paid by the

respondent-Company. The said finding of fact of the

learned single Judge has been rightly concurred with by

the Division Bench of the High Court. The same was

sought to be set aside by the APMC. We have carefully

examined the correctness of the concurrent finding of

38

Page 39

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

fact arrived at by the Division Bench on this aspect of

the matter. We are in agreement with the view taken by

the High Court of Gujarat in holding that the by-

product of the manufacture in producing the oil from

the castor seeds is only de-oiled cake and is not one

of the Schedule items in the Notification for the

purpose of levying market fee. Therefore, we do not

find any good reason whatsoever to interfere with the

concrete finding of fact on this aspect of the matter.

Hence, we have to affirm the concrete finding of fact

recorded by the learned single Judge and of the

Division Bench of the High Court. We do not find any

valid and cogent reasons to arrive at a different

conclusion other than the view taken by them as the

said view is based on a proper appreciation of the

factual matrix and the statutory provisions as de-oiled

cake is not mentioned in the Schedule to the Act and

the Notification. The item which is mentioned is oil

cake which is different and distinct from the de-oiled

cake as distinguished by this Court in the Modern

39

Page 40

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

Proteins Ltd. case referred to supra. The High Court has rightly applied the said decision to the fact

situation. Therefore, we are of the view that the said

finding of fact recorded by the High Court is legal and

valid. The same does not call for interference.

Accordingly, the appeal of the APMC on this aspect of

the matter must fail as we are affirming the order of

the Division Bench of the High Court on the levy of the

market fee on de-oiled cake by directing that the

amount in relation to the market fee levied on de-oiled

cake is to be reduced.

19. For the reasons recorded by us on the point Nos. 1

to 3 in C.A. No. 3130 of 2008 the APMC must succeed.

Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the

order of the Division Bench of the High Court in

Letters Patent Appeal No. 139 of 2006 and uphold the

levy of market fee on the castor seeds purchased by the

respondent-Company for the period in question, and it

is liable to pay the said market fee.

40

Page 41

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

20. For the reasons recorded in answer to the point No.

4, we dismiss the C.A. No. 3131 of 2008 filed by APMC,

Baroda against order passed in Letters Patent Appeal

No. 195 of 2006, upholding the order of the learned

single Judge which was affirmed by the Division Bench

of the High Court.

21. In view of the aforesaid reasons, Civil Appeal

No.3130 of 2008 is allowed and Civil Appeal No.3131 of

2008 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

…………………………………………………………J. [G.S. SINGHVI]

………………………………………………………J. [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

New Delhi, November 29, 2013

41

Page 42

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4860 OF 2009

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE ……APPELLANT

Versus

BIOTOR INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. ….RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

V. Gopala Gowda, J.

This matter is connected to the Civil Appeal

Nos. 3130-3131 of 2008 upon which we have pronounced the

judgment today.

2. The appellant-APMC herein challenged the

correctness of the judgment dated 10.2.2009 passed by

42

Page 43

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court in Letters

Patent Appeal No. 1383 of 2008 in Special Civil

Application No. 9705 of 2008 with Civil Application No.

13651 of 2008 whereby it has dismissed the Special

Civil Application holding that the same lacks merit and

also vacated interim relief granted by the learned

single Judge of High Court. Being aggrieved, the APMC

filed this Civil Appeal framing certain questions of

law and urging grounds in support of the same, praying

to set aside the impugned judgment and order and to

pass such other order as may be deemed fit and proper

in the circumstances of the case.

3. The brief necessary facts for the purpose of

examining the legality and validity of the impugned

order are stated herein:-

The appellant-APMC had filed Special Civil

Application No. 9705 of 2008 under Articles 14, 19, 21

and 226 of the Constitution of India before the learned

single Judge of the High Court impleading the

43

Page 44

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

respondent-Company and the State of Gujarat as parties,

seeking relief for the issue of writ of certiorari or

any other appropriate writ, order or direction, to set

aside order dated 30.6.2008 passed in Revision

Application No. 69 of 2008 by respondent No.2–the State

(Revisional Authority) and further sought for

declaratory relief to declare that the APMC is entitled

to levy market fee on the respondent-Company for

purchase of castor seeds as per the demand notices

dated 5.3.2008 and 15.4.2008 given to the respondent-

Company. Further, by way of amendment to the prayer

column, it has sought for declaratory relief to declare

Rule 48(2) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets

Rules, 1965 (for short “Rules”) as ultra vires of

Sections 28A and 59 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce

Markets Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as “the

Act”) urging various facts and legal grounds. The

amended Sections were added to the Act vide the Gujarat

Agricultural Produce Markets (Amendment) Act, 2007.

44

Page 45

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

4. The learned single Judge of the High Court after

hearing the learned counsel for the parties passed an

interim order on 13.11.2008 in Special Civil

Application No. 9705 of 2008 referring to Section

28(1) of the Act and amended Section 28(2)(a),(b),(c),

(d) & (e) of the Act and issued Rule to examine the

correctness of Rule 48(2) in view of the amendment to

the Act incorporating Section 2(a) to Section 28 of the

Act and directed the respondent-Company by giving

directions, particularly direction Nos. 2 and 3 which

are extracted hereunder :-

“(2) Respondent No.2 deposits 50% of the outstanding market fees with this Court and furnishes an undertaking before this Court for the remaining 50% of the amount to the effect that they shall pay up the remaining market fees with interest as and when it is so ordered by this Court. Such amount shall be invested, if deposited, by the Registrar in the FDR initially for a period of two years, renewable further with the State Bank of India, Gujarat High Court Branch, Ahmedabad.

(3) Respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to comply with either of the conditions within two months from the date of intimation and calculation of the Market Fees recoverable

45

Page 46

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

by the Market Committee from respondent No.2.”

Further, at paras 14 and 15 of the order dated

13.11.2008 of learned Single Judge, certain

observations were made, which read thus:-

“14. It is also observed and directed that it would be open to the petitioner to make representation to the State Government, which is Rule Making Authority, for amendment of the Rule 48 in light of the amended provisions of Section 28 of the Agriculture Produce Market Committee. If such representation is made, the pendency of this petition, shall not operate as a bar to the Rule Making Authority for bringing about amendment, as may be permissible in law.

15. It would be open to either side to move this Court for final hearing if the rules are amended or the matter before the Apex Court is finally decided, whichever is earlier.”

The correctness of this interim order dated 13.11.2008

was challenged by the respondent-Company by filing

Letters Patent Appeal No. 1383 of 2008 urging various

legal contentions. The Division Bench examined whether

sub-section (2)(a) added to Section 28 of the Act by

46

Page 47

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

amendment Act No. 17 of 2007 has the effect of taking

away the substratum of the Division Bench judgment dated

24.4.2007 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 139 of

2006 in connected matters. The Division Bench after

referring to certain relevant facts and Rule 48(2) of

the Rules, came to its conclusion on the basis of the

judgment rendered by the Division Bench of High Court in

the Letters Patent Appeal No. 139 of 2006 and connected

matters for the interpretation of Section 28 of the Act read with Rule 48(2) of the Rules. The relevant

paragraph 8 from the Division Bench judgment rendered in

the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal filed by the

respondent-Company is extracted hereunder:-

“8. Section 28 of the Act empowers the Market Committee to levy and collect fees on notified agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area, subject to the provisions of the Rules and at the rate maxima and minima, from time to time prescribed. Thus, the power of the Market Committee to levy prescribed fees is envisaged in the above section. In juxtaposition to the above section, it is necessary to refer to Rule 48 of the Rules, and more particularly Rules 48 and

47

Page 48

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

49, placed in Part VI with heading 'Fees, Levy and Collections', pertaining to market fees. Rule 48, sub-rule (1) and the explanation is highlighted by the learned Single Judge and discussion has taken place on the basis of certain material available on record with regard to sale of castor seeds by one Manish Trader of Ahmedabad to the Company and after relying upon Sections 19 to 22 of the Sale of Goods Act, the learned Single Judge found that sale does take place within the market area and, therefore, the Company is liable to pay market fees. However, sub-rule (2) of Rule 48 of Part VI of the Rules clearly prescribes that no fee shall be levied on agricultural produce brought from outside the market area into the market area for use therein by the industrial concerns situated in the market area or for export and, in respect of which declaration has been made and a certificate has been obtained in Form V. Thus, the above sub-rule (2) of Rule 48 nowhere prescribes that agricultural produce brought from outside the area of market committee has to be by the industrial concern itself. The preceding word is 'brought' and not 'bought'. Even the facts of the present case are examined, nowhere it is mentioned that purchase took place within the area of the market committee. In the affidavit in reply filed by the Company, it is clearly mentioned that purchase of castor seeds did take place outside the market area and no sale takes place within the market area. Even, weighment, etc. is also done outside the market area and bills are prepared accordingly and,

48

Page 49

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

that too, after selection by the representative of the Company. Not only that, but, the Company has produced bills of one Manish Traders at page 109 of Letters Patent Appeal No.195 of 2006, having numbered as Bill No.93, dated 3rd May 2004, is clearly indicative of the fact that sale does not take place within the area of Market Committee, Baroda. Besides, the octroi paid to the Baroda Municipal Corporation on the goods, namely, castor seeds imported and produced at page 107 is also suggestive of the fact that sale does not take place within the area of market committee. Even, the Company has produced number of forms prescribed under Rule 48, sub rule (2) from page 79 to 86, the fact not denied by the Market Committee, which also establishes the case of the Company with sufficient declaration and a certificate that the abovementioned agricultural produce, namely, castor seeds, has been brought from outside the limits of the market area and brought within the limits of market area for industrial purpose, and for production of castor oil and other byproducts. Thus, the Company fully complied with the requirement of Rule 48 of the Rules and is entitled for exemption from payment of market fees. Therefore, exercise undertaken by the learned Single Judge to find out the place of sale, so as to bring the case of the Company under Rule 48, subrule (1) of the Rules, is of no help and the finding, on that basis, arrived at by the learned Single Judge, will have to be quashed and set aside in

49

Page 50

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

the backdrop of the above discussion and the fact situation.”

5. Thereafter the amended provisions of Sections 28A

and 31D of the Act are referred to by the Division Bench

along with Section 28(1) of the Act and Rule 48(2) of

the Rules as well as sub-sections 2(a)and (b) of Section

28 of the amended provisions of the Act to come to the

conclusion, that in view of the factual legal

situation, the Revisional Authority had rightly

interfered with the demand notices issued by the APMC

and therefore held that Civil Appeal filed by the APMC

lacks merit and dismissed the same and the interim

relief granted was set aside and consequently Rule was

also discharged. The correctness of the same is

challenged here by urging various questions of law and

grounds in support of the same. The same need not be

adverted to in this judgment for the reason that the

learned Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court while

examining the directions in interim order dated

13.11.2008 given in Special Civil Application No. 9705

50

Page 51

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

of 2008 filed by the APMC has gone into the merits of

the case. Considerable reliance was placed upon the

Division Bench Judgment in Letters Patent Appeal No. 139

of 2006 by the counsel for the respondent-Company,

contending that the amendment Act has not brought any

change to Section 28 of the Act and further submitted

that the Revisional Authority has rightly held that the

APMC has no legal right to levy market fee on the

respondent-Company. The appellant-APMC in this appeal

has submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court,

instead of examining the correctness of the

discretionary powers exercised by the learned single

Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9705 of 2008 and

passing the interim order with certain observations,

has passed the orders on merits of the civil application

without adverting and examining the grounds urged in the

petition, which approach of the Division Bench is not

correct and it should not have pronounced decision on

the merits of the Special Civil Application while

examining the correctness of the interim order passed by

51

Page 52

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

the learned single Judge. The APMC has also sought

declaratory relief to declare Rule 48(2) as ultra vires

to Section 28A of the amended provision of the Act and

submitted that the Division Bench of the High Court

failed to appreciate the same and also that Section 28

of the Act deals with levy of market fee which is a

mandatory provision that does not give any exemption to

respondent-Company and as such a Rule cannot override

provisions of the Act. The Division Bench of the High

Court has simply affirmed the order of the Revisional

Authority by setting aside the assessment order passed

by the APMC vide notices dated 5.03.2008 and 15.4.2008

without awaiting the decision to be rendered by the

learned single Judge on the legality and validity of the

Rule 48(2) in the backdrop of Section 28, of the amended

provision.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we

have pronounced the judgment today in Civil Appeal

No. 3130 of 2008 on similar demand notices demanding the

market fee from the respondent-Company on the castor

52

Page 53

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

seeds bought in the market area for the purpose of

manufacturing of oil. We hold that the demand for the

market fee made by the APMC for castor seeds is

justified as per the reasoning given in our judgment in

the connected Civil Appeal No. 3130 of 2008, that the

castor seeds were bought in the market area and not

brought into the market area. It would suffice to say

that the order dated 10.02.2009 of the Division Bench of

the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1383 of 2008

setting aside the order dated 13.11.2008 of the learned

single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 9705 of

2008 and affirming the order dated 30.06.2008 of the

Revisional Authority in Revision Application No.69 of

2008, without examining the correctness of Rule 48(2)

of the Rules and applying the Division Bench Judgment

rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No 139 of 2006 without

considering the factual matrix and therefore, the same

is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, we set aside the

same and remand the matter to the High Court to place

the matter before the roster of learned single Judge to

53

Page 54

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

examine the validity of Rule 48(2) of the Rules, as

questioned with reference to Section 28A of the amended

provision of Act No. 17 of 2007 and the impugned order

of the Revisional Authority. The appellant may also

approach the State Government to amend the Rules by

deleting Rule 48(2) of the Rules. It is open for the

appellant to either press the Special Civil Application

to be decided on merits with regard to the validity of

Rule 48(2) and also examine the impugned order of

levying market fees on the goods purchased by the

respondent-Company on the basis of facts and material

evidence or to make revision application to the State

Government seeking for the deletion of Rule 48(2) by

amending the Rules with the above said observation.

7. This Civil Appeal is accordingly allowed in the

above terms by setting aside the impugned order of the

Division Bench and remanding the matter to the High

Court to place the same before the roster of learned

single Judge with a request to him to examine the

validity of the impugned Rule if the APMC so desires and

54

Page 55

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority

and decide the same on merits. The interim directions

given by the learned single Judge by way of interim

order dated 13.11.2008 directing to deposit 50% of the

demanded amount towards the market fee is restored. If

the company has not complied with that interim order, it

shall comply with the same within two weeks from the

date of receipt of the copy of this judgment.

…………………………………………………………J. [G.S. SINGHVI]

………………………………………………………J. [V. GOPALA GOWDA]

New Delhi, November 29, 2013

55

Page 56

C.A.No.3130-3131 of 2008

ITEM NO.1A COURT NO.13 SECTION IX (For Judgment)

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS CIVIL APPEAL NO(s). 3130-3131 OF 2008

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE Appellant (s)

VERSUS

BIOTOR INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR. Respondent(s)

WITH Civil Appeal NO. 4860 of 2009

Date: 29/11/2013 These Appeals were called on for pronouncement of judgments today.

For Appellant(s) Mr. B.K.Satija,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rabin Majumder,Adv.

Ms. Parul Kumari, Adv. Ms. Preeti Bhardwaj, Adv.

Ms. Hemantika Wahi ,Adv

Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Adv.

Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Gopala Gowda pronounced

reportable judgments of the Bench comprising

Hon'ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi and His

Lordship.

C.A. No. 3130 of 2008 is allowed, C.A. No. 3131

of 2008 is dismissed and C.A. No. 4860 of 2009 is

allowed in terms of the signed reportable

judgments.

[RAJNI MUKHI] [USHA SHARMA] SR. P.A. COURT MASTER

[Two separate signed reportable Judgments are placed on the file]

56

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE Vs BIOTOR INDUSTRIES LTD.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE Vs BIOTOR INDUSTRIES LTD.