Case: Raunaq Ram Tara Chand &amp; Ors. Etc Vs. The State Of Punjab &amp; Ors

on or before the date specified therein for obtaining licence, the prescribed authority may, before a licence is issued, impose on him such penalty not exceeding one hundred rupees as may be prescribed". By Section 5 of the Act the State Government by notification declares its intention of exercising control over the purchase, sale, storage and processing of specified agricultural produce in a specified area. By Section 6 (1) the Government by notification notifies a market area for the purpose of the Act, Section 6 (3) may be quoted :"6 (3). After the date of issue of such notification or from such later date as may be specified therein, no person, unless exempted by rules made under this Act, shall, either for himself or on behalf of another person, or of the State Government within the notified market area, set up, establish or continue or allow to be continued any place for the purchase. sale, storage and processing of the agricultural produce except under a licence granted in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the rules and bye-laws made thereunder and the conditions specified in the licence........."10. As we read the above sub-section it is clear that no person shall, unless exempted by rules, inter alia purchase, sell, store or process the specified agricultural produce except under a licence. It is not the case of the appellants that they belong to the exempted class.11. Rule 17 (1) provides that "a person desirous of obtaining a licence under Section 10 of the Act shall apply in Form A (to be submitted in duplicate) to the Chairman of the Board through the Committee of the area in which he wishes to carry on his business and shall also deposit with the committee the requisite licence fee". Sub-rule (3) provides that if any person on the specified date fails to apply for a licence, he is liable to penalty in accordance with a certain scale. Under sub-rule (7) "the Chairman may grant a licence to the applicant in Form B. The licence shall be subject to the conditions mentioned therein."12. When we look to Form A which is the form for application for a licence under Section 10 we find that against entry 8, the applicant has to give the "particulars of the business for which the licence is required" under four heads :(1) Kacha Arhtiya(2) Commission Agent.(3) Storage.(4) Processing.Similarly in Form B which is the form of the licence under Section 10, against entry 5, the same particulars of the business as against entry 8 in Form A appear. As a matter of fact one of the licences of the appellants was shown to us and it was in accordance with Form B. It is, therefore, clear that no licence has been issued to the appellants for doing business of buying and selling, agricultural produce. It is the case of the appellants that they make direct purchases and this fact is not controverted. Although, therefore, the appellants are licensees as required for some of the businesses mentioned in Form B, they have no licence for carrying on business of purchase and sale of agricultural produce within the notified market area.13. Now under Section 23 "a Committee may, subject to such rules as may be made by the State Government in this behalf, levy on ad valorembasis fees on the agricultural produce bought or sold by licensees in the notified market area at rate not exceeding rupee one fifty paise for every one hundred rupees, provided......" Section 43 provides for rulemaking power. Rule 24 is referable to Section 43 (2) (v), but we are not concerned with this rule in this case, Rule 29 provides that under Section 23 a Committee shall levy fees on the agricultural produce bought or sold by licensees in the notified market area at the rates fixed by the Board from time to time. Reading Section 23 and Rule 29 together it is not possible to escape from the conclusion that the Act authorises levy of fee on agricultural produce bought or sold in the notified market area by licensees only. The appellants have licence only in respect of the business of kacha arhtiya and commission agent. While we express no opinion on the point whether the absence of reference to buying and selling of agricultural produce in Form A and Form B disables the Committee to issue licences for that purpose, we are of opinion that the present appeals can be disposed of on the sole ground that the appellants have not as a matter of fact been issued such licences and no fees can, therefore be levied on them in respect of purchases and sales of agricultural produce by them. The appellants are, therefore, not liable to payment of fee under the Act as demanded.14. The appellants also contend that since gur and shakkar are manufactured products they cannot come under the definition of agricultural produce within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the Act. Section . 2 (a) defines agricultural produce to mean "all produce whether processed or not, of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry or forest as specified in the Schedule to this Act" which mentions 85 items of commodities. These are statutorily agricultural produce under Section 2 (a). It is not possible to entertain the argument that the Court will undertake a judicial scrutiny of these items in order to come to a conclusion whether these are agricultural produce or not. In view of the definition in Section 2 (a) such an enquiry is out of place. In this context we may note that under Section 38 the State Government may by notification add to the schedule any other item of agricultural produce or amend or omit any such specified item. It is because of this power to add to the schedule items of agricultural produce that the first part of the definition under Section 2 (a) gives guidance as to what agricultural produce means. The submissions are, therefore, devoid of substance.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]10. As we read the above sub-section it is clear that no person shall, unless exempted by rules, inter alia purchase, sell, store or process the specified agricultural produce except under a licence. It is not the case of the appellants that they belong to the exemptedSection 23 and Rule 29 together it is not possible to escape from the conclusion that the Act authorises levy of fee on agricultural produce bought or sold in the notified market area by licensees only. The appellants have licence only in respect of the business of kacha arhtiya and commission agent. While we express no opinion on the point whether the absence of reference to buying and selling of agricultural produce in Form A and Form B disables the Committee to issue licences for that purpose, we are of opinion that the present appeals can be disposed of on the sole ground that the appellants have not as a matter of fact been issued such licences and no fees can, therefore be levied on them in respect of purchases and sales of agricultural produce by them. The appellants are, therefore, not liable to payment of fee under the Act as. 2 (a) defines agricultural produce to mean "all produce whether processed or not, of agriculture, horticulture, animal husbandry or forest as specified in the Schedule to this Act" which mentions 85 items of commodities. These are statutorily agricultural produce under Section 2 (a). It is not possible to entertain the argument that the Court will undertake a judicial scrutiny of these items in order to come to a conclusion whether these are agricultural produce or not. In view of the definition in Section 2 (a) such an enquiry is out of place. In this context we may note that under Section 38 the State Government may by notification add to the schedule any other item of agricultural produce or amend or omit any such specified item. It is because of this power to add to the schedule items of agricultural produce that the first part of the definition under Section 2 (a) gives guidance as to what agricultural produce means. The submissions are, therefore, devoid of substance.