Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI AND ANR. ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SHANKAR INDUSTRIES AND ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT11/02/1993
BENCH:
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
BENCH:
KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)
YOGESHWAR DAYAL (J)
CITATION:
1993 SCR (1)1037 1993 SCC Supl. (3) 361
JT 1993 (1) 601 1993 SCALE (1)615
ACT:
UP. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964:
Section 2(a) ’Agricultural produce-Levy of market fee-Gur
lauta, raskat, rab galawat, rab salawat-Held exigible to
market fee.
HEADNOTE:
Section 2(a) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam of
1964 defined ’agricultural produce’. The words ’gur, rab,
shakkar, Khandasari and jaggery’, were added in the said
definition by U.P. Act No. 10 of 1970.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court referred the
question whether gur-lauta and raskat and rab-salawat are
liable to the law, of market fee under the U.P. Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam of 1964 to a Full Beach. The Full
Bench held that gur-lauta and raskat and rabgalawat and
salawat were not an ’agricultural produce’ within the
meaning of the Act, and other Benches followed the Full
Bench.
In the appeals to this Court, it was contended on behalf of
the appellants that when gur khandsari and shakkar have
been added in the definition of ’agricultural produce’ rab-
galawat. or rab-salawat being the inferior forms of the rab
are necessary an agricultural produced within the definition
of agricultural produce. On behalf of the respondents it
was contended that the Full Bench was right in taking the
view that molasses are a different product which looses its
original character and being a residual article after
solidification of the natural article i.e., sugarcane juice,
it cannot be said to be an agricultural produce, that
molasses itself being not an agricultural produce, gur lauta
and raskat prepared from molasses cannot be held to be an
agricultural produce.
Allowing the appeals, this Court,
HELD: 1. A persual of the definition of agricultural
produce’ under Section 2(a) of the Act shows that apart from
items of produce of agriculture, horitculture, viticulture,
apiculture, sericulture, pisciculture, 1037
1038
animal husbandry or forest as are specified in the Schedule,
the definition further ’includes admixture of two or more
such items’ and thereafter it further ’includes taking any
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6
such item in processed from’ and again for the third time
the words used are land further includes gur, rab, shakkar,
khandsari and jaggery. [1041C]
2. It is a well settled rule of interpretation that where
the legislature used the words ’means’ and ’includes’ such
definition is to be given a wider meaning and is not
exhaustive or restricted to the items contained or included
in such definition. [1041D]
3. The meaning of ’agricultural produce’ in the above
definition is not restricted to any products of agriculture
as specified in the Schedule but also includes such items
which come into being in processed form and further includes
such items which are called as gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari
and jaggery. [1041E]
4. Gur-lauta or raskat and rab-salawat made from sugarcane
or from molasses shall fall within the definition of
’agricultural produce’ as contained in Section 2(a) of the
Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, and are
exigible to market fee. The view taken by the Full Bench of
the High Court is not correct [1042C, 1043D]
Rathi Khandsari Udyog etc. v. State of U.P. & Ors. etc.,
[1985] 2 S.C.R. 966; Kishan Lal and Ors. v. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., [1990) 2 S.C.R. 142; and Bharat Trading v.
State of U.P. & Ors., WP (C) No. 9982 decided on 31st March,
1992, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3111-16 of
1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.4.90 of the Allahabad
High Court in W.P. No. 5627, 6163/88, 1193, 8415, 10360/89
and 1076 of 1990.
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 580 to 606 of 1993 & 4416 of 1991
E.C. Agrawala, Anant V. Palli, Atual Sharma, Mrs. Purnima B
at Kak, Mrs. Rekha Palli and Pradeep Misra for the
Appellants.
1039
C.S. Vaidyanathan, R.K. Jain Ms. Bharti Sharma, Mrs. Rani
Chhabra, K.B. Rohtagi and Ms. Aparna Rohtagi for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of he Court was delivered by
KASLIWAL, J. Computer Code No. 12964 of 1991.
(In S.L.P. (C) No. of 1991)
Delinked. See separate Order in the concerned file.
Special Leave granted in all the other petitions. In all
the above appeals the short controversy raised is whether
gur-lauta and raskat and rab-galawat and rab-salawat are
liable to the levy of market fee under the U.P. Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam of 1964 (hereinafter referred to as
’the Act’).
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court referred the
question for being considered by a Full Bench. The Full
Bench of the High Court by decision dated 2.4.1990 held that
gur-lauta and raskat and rab-galawat and salawat were not an
agricultural produce within the meaning of the Act.
Subsequently other Benches followed the aforesaid decision
of the Full Bench. All the above appeals by grant of
Special Leave are directed against the Judgment of the Full
Bench dated 2.4.1990 as well as the subsequent decisions
following the Full Bench case.
Section 2(a) of the Act defines ’agricultural produce’ and
reads as under
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6
"2(a) ’agricultural produce’ means such items
of produce of agriculture, horticulture,
viticulature, apiculture, sericulture,
pisciculture, animal husbandry, or forest as
are specified in the Schedule and includes
admixture of two or more of such items, and
also includes any such item in processed form,
and further includes gur, rub, shakkar,
khandsari and jaggery".
It may be mentioned that the words gur, rab, shakkar,
khandsari and jaggery were added in the above definition of
agricultural produce by U.P. Act No.10 of 1970. To decide
the controversy raised in these cases the definition of
agricultural produce has to be taken into consideration
after the words added by the aforesaid U.P. Act No.10 of
1970. Sugarcane is an agricultural produce out of which
juice is extracted. The said juice gets
1040
thickened by dehydration and when it reaches a particular
pigment, it takes the form of rab which is a semi solid form
of the sugarcane juice. After the process of boiling this
rab is put in a crystaliser where it is allowed to get
cooled and crystals are formed when the same is rotated in
the crystaliser. The crystalised rab is then put into
centrifugal machines in which through the process of
infusion of sulphur, the sugarcane juice is cleaned and
whitened.
The rab which is not put into the centrifugal machine but is
dehydrated and is. allowed to be hardened by the open pan
process takes the shape of gur which is normally used for
home consumption.
The rab which is not allowed to be hardened is also sold in
semi solid form but those persons who desire to make further
profits put the rab into centrifugal machines and by the
process of infusion of sulphur they obtain khandsari in the
dry powder/crystalised form and the waste of rab which is
obtained in the liquid form is known as molasses.
The residue which is known as molasses is further utilised
by many people by boiling in the open pans and the same is
again re-processed by cleaning and dehydrating and later by
sulphitation is taken in powder form. This first process
out of molasses of rab in the semi solid form is also sold
in the market because this inferior quality contains less
content of sucrose and is called rab-galawat. Rab-salawat
is also prepared by the same process out of the molasses and
is further inferior quality of rab. It has been contended
on behalf of the appellants that rab-galawat and rab-salawat
are thus nothing but different forms of rab although a
little and/or more inferior in quality. It has been
contended that the main ingredient being sugarcane out of
which juice is extracted and when gur, rab, khandsari and
shakkar have been added in the definition of agricultural
produce, the rab-galawat or rab-salawat being the inferior
forms of rab are necessarily an agricultural produce within
the above definition of agricultural produce.
It has also been submitted that so far as gur-lauta or other
forms of gur like kala-gur, gur-budha etc., are also
prepared from the molasses by re-boiling the molasses in the
open pans which is allowed to thicken after dehydration in
the boiling pans. Thus it has been submitted that gur-lauta
or gur-raskat is nothing else except inferior form of gur.
On the other hand it has been contended on behalf of the
respon-
1041
dents that the Full Bench of the High Court was right in
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6
taking the view that molasses are a different product which
looses its original character and being a residual article
after solidification of the natural article i.e., sugarcane
juice, it cannot be said to be an agricultural produce. It
has been contended that molasses itself being not an
agricultural produce, gur-lauta and raskat prepared from
molasses cannot be held to be an agricultural produce.
We have considered the arguments advanced on behalf. of the
parties and have perused the record. A perusal of the
definition of agricultural produce under Section 2(a) of the
Act shows that apart from items of produce of agriculture,
horticulture, viticulture, apiculture, sericulture,
pisciculture, animal husbandry or forest as are specified in
the Schedule the definition further ’includes admixture of
two or more such items and thereafter it further ’includes
taking any such item in processed form and again for the
third time the words used are ’and further includes gur,
rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery’. It is a well settled
rule of interpretation that where the legislature uses the
words ’means’ and ’includes’ such definition is to be given
a wider meaning and is not exhaustive or restricted to the
items contained or included in such definition. Thus the
meaning of’ agricultural produce’ in the above definition is
not restricted to any products of agriculture as specified
in the Schedule but also includes such items which come into
being in processed form and further includes such items
which are called as gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery
If we look the matter from another angle, U.P. Krishi
Utpadan Adhiniyam is’a beneficial legislation both for the
agriculturists as well as the traders. It provides for
collecting market fee by the mandi samities from the
agricultural produce brought for sale and purchase in the
market areas. We find no ground or justification to take
the view that the legislature though intended to levy market
fee by mandi samities on gur and rab but may have had no
intention of charging of market fee on inferior qualities of
gur called as gur-lauta or raskat and similarly of inferior
qualities of rab called rab-galawat and rab-salawat. We do
not find any good reason to take the view, as contended on
behalf of the respondents, that the gur-lauta or raskat
being prepared from the molasses as such these items should
not be considered as agricultural produce. It cannot be
denied that molasses is a syrup drained from the sugarcane
juice in the process of manufacturing sugar. Similarly rab
is also a product prepared in the same process and
1042
rab-salawat and galawat are inferior forms of rab.
It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that gur-
lauta or raskat is not fit for human consumption and the
same is utilised for animal consumption as such cannot fall
within the definition of gur. Even if for arguments sake it
may be admitted that the aforementioned inferior quality of
gur is not fit for human consumption and is utilised for
animal consumption, we do not see any reason to hold that on
account of such use or consumption the item cannot be held
as an agricultural produce within the meaning of its
definition in Section 2(a) of the Act. Thus in our view an
kinds of rab and gur made from sugarcane or from molasses
shall fall within the definition of rab and gur as contained
in Section 2 (a) of the Act.
In Rathi Khandsari Udyog etc. v. State of U.P. & Ors etc.,
[1985] 2 S.C.R. 966 this court while considering the
definition of khandsari under Section 2 (a) of the Act held
as under :-
"The Legislature has in terms encompassed
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6
’Khandsari’ within the definition of Section
2(a) of the Act. And the term ’Khandsari’ is
sufficiently wide to cover all varieties of
khandsari including the article produced by
the factories like those of the petitioners.
Besides the basic premise assumed by the
petitioners that the object of the Act is
merely to protect the producers from
exploitation is fallacious. of course one of
the main objects of the Act is to protect the
producers from being cheated by unscrupulous
traders in the matter of price, weight,
payment, unlawful market charges etc. and to
render them immune from exploitation as
indicated by the ’prefatory note’ and by the
provisions contained in Section 16(i), (ii),
(iii), (iv), (viii) etc. While this is one of
the objects of the Act, it is not the sole or
only object of the Act. The Act has many more
objects and a much wider perspective such as
development of new market areas, efficient
collection of data, and processing of arrivals
in Mandis with a view to enable the World Bank
to give substantial economic assistance to
establish various markets in Uttar Pradesh as
also protection of consumers and even traders
from being exploited
1043
in the matter of quality, weight and price".
In Kishan Lal and Ors. v. Slate of Rajasthan & Ors., [1990]
2 S.C.R. 142 it was held as under:
"The definition of the word ’agricultural
produce" in the Act includes all produce
whether agricultural, horticultural, animal
husbandry or otherwise as specified in the
Schedule. The legislative power to add or
include and define a word even artificially,
apart, the definition which is not exhaustive
but inclusive, neither excludes any item
produced in mill or factories nor it confines
its width to produce from soil. Nor switch
over from indigenous method of producing
anything to scientific or mechanical method
changes its character. To say, therefore,
that sugar being produced in mill or factories
could not be deemed to be agricultural produce
is both against the statutory language and
judicial interpretation of similar provisions
of the Act in statutes of other States".
In Bharat Trading v. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 9982 of 1983 decided on 31st March, 1992 it was
held that ’raskat’ is nothing more than an inferior quality
of gur and the same was held as an agricultural produce
within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Act.
Thus we hold that gur lauta or raskat and rab-galawat and
rab salawat fall within the definition of ’agricultural
produce’ as contained in Section 2(a) of the Act and are
exigible to market fee under the Act and the view taken by
the Full Bench of the High Court is not correct. In the
result we allow all these appeals., set aside the impugned
judgments of the High Court and as a result of which the
writ petitions riled by tile respondents stand dismissed.
No order as to costs.
N.V.K.
Appeals allowed.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6
1044