Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Narsinghpur vs M/S. Shiv Shakti Khansari Udyog & Ors

6. The Division Bench of the High Court referred to the provisions of the Market Act, the Sugarcane Act and the Control Order and held that the transactions involving the sale and purchase of sugarcane are governed by Sections 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the Sugarcane Act and Clauses (3), (4), (5), (5A) and (6) of the Control Order, which are in the nature of special legislations vis-à-vis the Market Act and, as such, market fee cannot be levied by the Market Committees. The reasons assigned by the High Court for arriving at this conclusion are contained in paragraph 17 of order dated 6.7.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 391/1995 and batch, which is extracted below:

(3) Where the person liable under sub-section (2) is in default in making the payment of the price for a period exceeding fourteen days from the date of delivery he shall also pay interest at the rate of 14- 1/2 per cent, per annum from the said date of delivery upto the date of payment but the Cane Commissioner may, in any case, direct with the approval of the State Government that no interest shall be paid or be paid at such reduced rate as he may fix.

(4) The Cane Commissioner shall forward to the Collector a certificate under his signature specifying the amount of arrears on account of the price of cane plus interest, if any, due from the occupier and the Collector, on receipt of such certificate, shall proceed to recover from such occupier the amount specified therein as if it were an arrear of land revenue together with further interest up to the date of recovery.”

36. The occupier of a factory shall — (a) provide, metalled approaches from the public roads to the parking ground at the factory premises, from the parking ground to the cane carrier of factory, and metalled exits from the cane carrier to public roads, up to such distances as may be directed by the Cane Commissioner and keep the same in a proper state of repairs;

(4) to (6) xxxx xxxx xxxx (7) In case, the price of the sugarcane remains unpaid on the last day of the sugar year in which cane supply was made to the factory on account of the suppliers of cane not coming forward with their claims therefor or for any other reason it shall be deposited by the producer of sugar with the Collector of the district in which the factory is situated, within three months of the close of the sugar year. The Collector shall pay, out of the amount so deposited, all claims, considered payable by him and preferred before him within three years of the close of the sugar year in which the cane was supplied to the factory. The amount still remaining undisbursed with the Collector, after meeting the claims from the suppliers, shall be credited by him to the Consolidated Fund of the State, immediately after the expiry of the time limit of 3 years within which claims therefor could be preferred by the suppliers. The State Government shall, as far as possible, utilise such amounts, for development of sugarcane in the State.” The Market Act

13. Initially, the State Legislature had enacted the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Markets Act, 1960. After noticing certain defects in the scheme of that Act and with a view to ensure efficient functioning of the Market Committees which would benefit agriculturists and traders, a committee of the members of the State Legislature was formed in 1965. The recommendation made by the Committee for enactment of a new legislation was accepted by the State Government. Accordingly, the Market Act was enacted for better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and for the establishment and proper administration of markets of agricultural produce in the State. The relevant provisions of the Market Act read as under:

15. The Control Order deals with the fixation of minimum price of sugarcane to Cane Growers or Cane Growers’ Co-operative Societies. Clause 3(1) of the Control Order empowers the Central Government to fix the minimum price of sugarcane to be paid by the producers of sugar or their agents for the sugarcane purchased by them. For this purpose, the Central Government is required to take into account the cost of production of sugarcane; return to the grower from alternative crop and the general trend of prices of agricultural commodities; the availability of sugar to the consumers at a fair price; the price at which sugar is sold by producers of sugar; and the recovery of sugar from sugarcane. Clause 3(2) mandates that no person shall sell or agree to sell sugarcane and no producer or his agent shall purchase or agree to purchase sugarcane at a price lower than the minimum price. Clauses 3(3) and (3-A) mandate payment of the price of cane within 14 days from the date of delivery and levy interest at the rate of 15% per annum for the period of delay beyond 14 days.

(Sd/-) (P.P. Nayyar) Joint Secretary.”

28. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Constitution Benches, we hold that Article 254(2) of the Constitution is not available to the appellants for seeking a declaration that the Market Act would prevail over the Control Order and that transactions involving the purchase of sugarcane by the factories operating in the market areas would be governed by the provisions contained in the Market Act. As a corollary, we hold that the High Court did not commit any error by quashing the notices issued by appellant - Market Committees to the respondents requiring them to take licence under the Market Act and pay market fee on the purchase of sugarcane from Cane Growers/Cane Growers Cooperative Societies.

29. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.