V. N. Khare, J. - (1.) The appellant herein is a company registered under the Indian Companies' Act and has its head office and factory outside the State of Bihar. The company manufactures fruit drinks and markets it under the brand name of 'Frooti' and 'Appy' in the State of Bihar through its agents. The Bihar Legislature has enacted an Act known as 'Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1960' (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The object of the Act is to provide better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the arrangement of market for agricultural produce in the State of Bihar. Under Section 27 of the Act, the Market Committee set up under the Act has power to levy and collect market fee on the agricultural produce, which are specified in the Schedule and are bought or sold in the market area. It is not disputed that the entire district of Patna is declared as a market area. Section 2(1)(a) of the Act defines agricultural produce which runs as under:" 'Agricultural produce' means all produce whether processed or non-processed, manufactured or not, of Agriculture, Horticulture, Plantation, animal Husbandry, Forest, Sericulture, Pisciculture, and includes livestock or poultry as specified in the Schedule".
(2.) Under Section 39 of the Act, the State Government by a notification is empowered to add, amend, or cancel any of the items of the agricultural produce in the Schedule as required by Section 2(1)(a) of the Act. In the Schedule, as contemplated under Section 2(1)(a), mango and apple are specified under the caption 'fruits' as items Nos. 1 and 13 respectively. The respondents treating 'Frooti' and 'Appy' as mango and apple products issued a notice dated 28-3-89, requiring the appellant to pay market fee on the products marketed under the brand name 'Frooti' and 'Appy', failing which action under the Act would be taken. Under such circumstances, the appellant challenged the aforesaid demand by means of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the said writ petition was dismissed and Letters Patent Appeal filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge was also dismissed. It is in this way the appellant is in appeal before us.
(3.) The short question that arises for consideration in this case is, whether the products which are ready to serve beverages under the brand name 'Frooti' and 'Appy' fall under the description of mango and apple, specified in the Schedule. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that, both the fruit drinks are not covered by the Schedule, whereas the contention of the respondents' counsel is that the products being the mango and apple juices are covered under the item 'mango' and 'apple', as specified in the Schedule.;