http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 6453  of  2001

PETITIONER: I.T.C. LTD.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/01/2002

BENCH: CJI, G.B. PATTANAIK, Y.K. SABHARWAL, RUMA PAL & BRIJESH KUMAR

JUDGMENT:

WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 540/1987, 541/1987, 3872/1990, 3024/1988, 3023/1988, 1535/1988, 1194/1988,  1394/1988, 1536/1988, 1980/1988, 1981/1988, 3715/1988, 2464/1988, 6619/1997, C.A. No. _____ _____/2002 (arising out of  SLP(C) No. 892/1985), W.P. (C) No. 8614/1982, C.A. Nos. 2088-208 9/1999, C.A. Nos. __________/2002 (arising out of  SLP(C) Nos. 27568-27570/1995)

BY THE COURT

       In keeping with the conclusions of the majority, expressed in the judgments of Sabha rwal, Ruma Pal and Brijesh Kumar, JJ., it is held that :

(1) ITC’s case [1985 Supp. (1) SCC 476] was not correctly decided.

(2) The State legislatures are competent to enact legislation providing for the levy and col lection of a market fee on the sale of tobacco in a market area.  Consequently, the Market A cts enacted by the States are valid.

(3) The State legislations and the Tobacco Board Act, 1975, to the extent that they relate t o the sale of tobacco in market areas, cannot co-exist and the former prevail over the latte r.

The appeals and the writ petition are disposed of accordingly.  No order as to costs.

.......................................CJI.

..........................................J.                    (G.B. Pattanaik)

..........................................J.                    (Y.K. Sabharwal)

..........................................J.                     (Ruma Pal)

..........................................J.                   (Brijesh Kumar)

                 January 24, 2002.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2