http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: SMT.  SITA DEVI (DEAD) BY LRS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT22/11/1994

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. PARIPOORNAN, K.S.(J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (1) 670 JT 1995 (1)   411  1994 SCALE  (5)86

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.   This  appeal by special leave arises from the  judgment of  the Division Bench of the Patna High Court  in  C.W.J.C. No. 1654 of 1974 dated March 24, 1983.  The only question is whether  Market  Committee has power to levy market  fee  on buffaloes,  bullocks  and  cows  bought  or  sold  on  every Thursday in Sammaspur Hat.  The Division Bench held that  by operation of s.2(1)(a) read with Item 3 in Classification  8 of  the Schedule under the head ’Animal Husbandry  Products’ cattle is an agricultural produce for the purpose of levy of the market fee under s. 27 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets  Act, 1960 (Act XVI of 1960), for short  ’the  Act’. We  find no force in the contention of Sri  Sanyal,  learned Senior  counsel for the appellant that the cattle is not  an agricultural  produce  and the levy and  collection  of  the market  fee  on the cattle bought or sold  in  the  notified market  is  without jurisdiction, Section 15(1) of  the  Act provides that no agricultural produce specified in the noti- fication under sub.s.(1) of s.4, shall be bought or sold  by any  person at any place within the market area, other  than the  principal  market  yard or  sub-market  yard  or  yards established  therein,  except such quantity as may  in  this behalf   be   prescribed  for  retail   sale   or   personal consumption.   Sale or purchase of the agricultural  produce in  such areas shall, notwithstanding anything contained  in any  law, be made by means of open auction or tender  system except  in case of such class or description of  produce  as may be exempted by the Board.  Section 27 of the Act is  the charging  section  for levy of the market  fee  which  reads thus:               "Market  Committee  shall  levy  and   collect               market fees on the agricultural produce bought               or  sold  in the market area, at the  rate  of               rupee  one  per Rs.100 worth  of  agricultural               produce."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

The   question,   therefore,  is  whether   cattle   is   an agricultural produce.  Section 2(1)(a) defines  Agricultural Produce thus:               "2(1)-In  this Act, unless there  is  anything               repugnant in the subject or context -               (a)"agricultural    produce"   includes    all               produce, whether processed or non-processed of               agriculture,  horticulture,  animal  husbandry               and forest specified in the Schedule". 2.   As stated earlier, in Classification 8  of          the Schedule,  Item  3 identifies cattle to be  an  agricultural produce.   It is true that in the common parlance of  animal husbandry cattle may not be considered to be an agricultural produce.  But the definition is an inclusive definition  and is  wide  of import.  The legislature itself  has  specified diverse items in the schedule which is part of the Act which are  amenable to levy and collection of the market fee  when the specified item is bought or sold in the notified  market yard or sub-market yard or yard or in the notified area.  In view of the fact that the legislature itself, on identifying the cattle to be an agricultural produce, laid its policy to subject  cattle for levy market fee, it is not open  to  the Court to scan its wisdom.  Though in the normal  connotation cattle  may  appear to be not an  agricultural  produce,  it needs to be given effect unless the legislature lacks compe- tence which is not the case of the appel- 412 lant.   The policy and the wisdom of the legislature  cannot be  tested  by  taking  aid  of  the  preamble  of  the  Act particularly  when the language of s.2(1)(a)  is  inclusive, unambiguous, specific and explicit.  Preamble of the Act  is the  key  to  open  the mind of  the  legislature  when  the language   of  the  statute  is  ambiguous.   Absurdity   of irrationality   of   bringing  the   enumerated   items   of agricultural produce within the sweep of the legislature  is not  a  principle of interpretation of the statute  and  the court cannot strike down the Act on its basis. 3.The  inclusive  definition in  s. 2(1)(a)    under     the caption animal husbandry products, cattle has been specified as one of the items of agricultural produce for the  purpose of  s.27. We find that the market committee,  therefore,  is well  within its power to levy and collect market  fee  when the  cattle  was bought or sold in the  notified  market  or notified  market  area.  It is a common  knowledge  that  in rural  areas  weekly  cattle fairs are  conducted  in  which cattle will be brought for sale and are sold. its regulation is the purpose of the Act.  The learned counsel, Sri Sanyal, sought  to seek support from the observations made  by  this Court in Ramesh Chandra v. Slate of UP., 1980 (3) SCR 104 at p. 125.  The observations therein would be construed in  the contest in which the argument was addressed.  It is not  the case where the cattle has not been identified as one of  the items of the agricultural produce under the caption  "animal husbandry products".  As held earlier that once agricultural produce  has  been  identified by  the  legislature  in  the Schedule, so long as they are bought or sold within the same notified   market  area,  they  are  liable  for  levy   and collection  of the market fee.  It is not the case that  the same  produce namely , cattle has been subjected to levy  of multiple  fee  in the same notified area.  It  may  be  that there  may  be  more than one market in  the  same  notified market area.  If an agricultural produce has been bought  or sold in the notified area and subject to levy and collection of  market  fee  and  if  the  same  notified  market  area, certainly  the market committee has no power to levy  market

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

fee  more  than  once.   But that  is  not  the  case  here. Imposing of multiple tax is the accepted legislative  policy in  Sales Tax Acts.  Paddy and rice, wheat and wheat  flour, when separated, identified as agricultural produce and  each is  exigible  to levy of market fee.  Hydes and  skins  when identified as agricultural produce, merely they are  treated from carease, they are not exempt from levy of market fee as the  cattle  was already subjected to levy  of  market  fee. Ghee  and  butter are by products from milk but  when  milk, ghee  and butter are notified as agricultural produce,  each is exigible to levy of market value. 4.   We,  therefore,  hold that cattle  is  an  agricultural produce  and exigible to levy and collection of market  fee. We  find  no illegality in the judgment of  the  High  Court warranting   interference.    The  appeal   is   accordingly dismissed with costs quantified as Rs. 10,000/-.  414