Case: Director of Mktg., Bihar State Agricultural Produce Marketing Board and Another Vs. Hindustan Copper Limited

1. The question before the High Court was whether the respondent M/s. Hindustan Copper Limited was liable to pay market fee under the Bihar State Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960 (the Act) and the rules framed thereunder. The High Court answered the question in the negative and against the appellant. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the High Court 2. The respondent-Company is engaged in the business of mining ore for manufacturing copper and brass. The Company pursuant to the industrial award dated 5-5-1951, is supplying rice and wheat at 0.45 paise per kg to its workmen and employees as a subsidy. The respondent-Company is under an obligation to provide the said subsidy in terms of the award. The Company also supplies sugar and pulses to the employees at cost price without any profit motives. The rice, sugar and pulses are supplied to the workmen/employees as a facility. On these admitted facts the authorities under the Act came to the conclusion that the respondent-Company was engaged in the business of buying and selling agricultural produce and as such was liable to pay market fee. According to the authorities the Company was a trader within the definition of Section 2(1) (w) of the Act 3. The Company challenged the orders of the authorities under the Act by way of a writ petition before the High Court. On the admitted facts stated above, the High Court has found that the only business of the Company was of mining ore for manufacture of copper and brass and the Company was not at all doing any other business. The High Court also held that the ordinary business of the Company being manufacture of copper and brass, it could not come within the definition of a trader under Section 2(1) (w) of the Act. The High Court reversed the findings of the authorities below and came to the conclusion that the Company was not a trader and as such was not liable to take licence and as a consequence was not liable to pay the market fee. We have been taken through the judgment of the High Court. We see no ground to interfere with the same. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein.

Decision reasoning: 0[ds]The High Court also held that the ordinary business of the Company being manufacture of copper and brass, it could not come within the definition of a trader under Section 2(1) (w) of the Act. The High Court reversed the findings of the authorities below and came to the conclusion that the Company was not a trader and as such was not liable to take licence and as a consequence was not liable to pay the market fee. We have been taken through the judgment of the High Court. We see no ground to interfere with the same. We agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached therein.