Supreme Court: In an appeal concerning whether “ghee” is a “product of livestock” under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (‘the Act’), the division bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and SVN Bhatti, JJ. has held that there was nothing wrong in the 1994 notification and the challenge to the notification has rightly been turned down by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, stating that the notification is not under Section 3 but under Section 4 of the Act, and is valid and moreover “ghee” is a livestock product.
Another issue in the present case is whether the Government notification, which inter alia notifies “ghee” as one of the products of livestock for the purpose of regulation of purchase and sale of “ghee” in all notified market areas was published after due compliance of the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act?
The Court said that the said Act is farmer friendly legislation. The commodities which were to be regulated were not only agricultural produce, but also livestock as well as products of livestock.
After taking note of the relevant provisions of the Act, it said that first there will be a larger physical unit called “notified area” wherein the market committee shall establish markets and thereafter, through a notification under Section 4 (4) of the Act, the Government declares a “notified market area” in respect of the notified products.
The Court noted that in 1968, the State of Andhra Pradesh had issued a notification under Section 3 (3) of the Act declaring “notified areas” in the State where “ghee” was included in Schedule II of the said notification as a ‘livestock product’. Thereafter, in 1971, a notification under Section 4 (4) was published, which declared the ‘notified market areas’ in respect of the Agricultural Market Committee (‘AMC’), and “ghee” was specified as a ‘notified product’. However, in 1972, the 1971 notification was amended, and “ghee” was taken out of the list of notified livestock products in respect of AMC, and it remained so for a considerable period. Both these notifications were issued under Section 4 (4) of the Act and not under Section 3 (3) of the Act. Later, in 1994, the Andhra Pradesh Government published a general notification directing all the notified markets within the State to regulate all the products notified in Schedule II of the 1968 Notification, which also included Ghee. This notification of 1994 was challenged by the producers of livestock products, claiming that “ghee” is not a “product of livestock” and therefore cannot be regulated and notified, and that there is a procedure under the law for issuing the notification, which has not been followed and therefore the notification is bad in law.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the notification of 1994, holding that the said notification is not under Section 3 but under Section 4 of the Act, and is valid and moreover “ghee” is a livestock product.
The Court said that the argument that “ghee” is not a product of livestock is baseless and bereft of any logic, as Cows and buffalos are the livestock. Thus, “ghee” is a product of milk which is a product of the livestock.
Concerning the argument that the process under Section 3, has not been followed, the Court said that there is a basic difference between the notification which has to be made under Section 3 of the Act and the notification which has to be made subsequently under Section 4 of the Act. Under Section 3 the Government notifies an area where purchase and sale of agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock can be made. This is a one-time exercise. However, under Section 4 of the Act the Government declares the ‘notified market area’ in respect of any notified product (products which have already been notified under Section 3 of the Act). Whereas a draft notification is mandatory under Section 3 and so is the hearing of objections to the draft notification, there is no similar provision under Section 4 of the Act.
Thus, the Court held that there was nothing wrong in the 1994 notification and the challenge to the notification has rightly been turned down by the Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
Concerning the issue related to the market fee, the Court said that since the 1994 notification had an effect which made ‘Ghee’ a product that could be regulated under provisions of the Act, Market Committees were empowered to levy fee on the sale and purchase of ‘ghee’ as per Section 12 of the Act.
The Court said that since the accumulated fee may entail some hardship on the appellants, they are permitted to deposit this fee with the Committee within two years from the date of this judgment, in four equal instalments.
Thus, the Court upheld the impugned judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
[Sangam Milk Producer Co. Ltd. v. Agricultural Market Committee, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 236, decided on 05-03-2024]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia
Know Thy Judge | The Remarkable Odyssey of Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia – from bar to bench
