KISHAN LAL OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN
LAWS(SC)-1990-3-76
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: RAJASTHAN)
Decided on March 23,1990

KISHAN LAL,OM PRAKASH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

INDIA SURGICAL WORKS GHAZIABAD VS. ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE HAPUR [LAWS(ALL)-1999-7-191] [REFERRED TO]
B RAMA RAJU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2011-3-76] [REFERRED TO]
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA BANGALORE VS. JACQUELINE CHANDANI [LAWS(KAR)-1993-9-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. KISANROOP KAPAGATE AND [LAWS(BOM)-1991-2-1] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. SURESH S O RAMESHWARDAS LOHIYA [LAWS(BOM)-1992-12-24] [REFERRED TO]
BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. BOMBAY AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING COMMITTEE [LAWS(BOM)-2006-6-28] [REFERRED TO]
FOREST RANGE OFFICER KHUSHBOO ENTERPRISES VS. P MOHAMMAD ALI:FOREST RANGE OFFICER [LAWS(SC)-1993-5-52] [RELIED ON]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. RAJASTHAN AGRICULTURE INPUT DEALERS ASSOCIATION [LAWS(SC)-1996-7-84] [DISTINGUISHED]
FEROZE N DOTIVALA VS. P M WADHWANI [LAWS(SC)-2002-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
GHATGE PATIL TRANSPORT LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-11-40] [REFERRED TO]
MEWAR SUGAR MILLS LTD VS. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE KAPASAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1991-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI SUGAR MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION UDAIPUR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHANÂ [LAWS(RAJ)-1993-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI VS. SHANKAR INDUSTRIES [LAWS(SC)-1993-2-50] [RELIED ON]
KHUSHBOO ENTERPRISES CALICUT VS. FOREST RANGE OFFICER PALAKKAD [LAWS(KER)-1992-12-3] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-313] [REFERRED TO]
BUDHEWAL CO-OPERATIVE SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(P&H)-2009-5-162] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ NAGAR EXTENSION N.H. 58 DEVELOPERS ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-2-365] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

R. M. Sahai, J. - (1.)Validity of Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1961 (for brevity the Act) levying market-fee on sale and purchase of agricultural produce in market-yard or sub-market-yard was challenged by dealers for lack of legislative competence, violation of Articles 14, 19, 301 and 304 of Constitution, absence of any quid pro quo in the fee paid and service rendered, illegal and arbitrary inclusion of manufactured articles such as Khandsari, Shakkar, Gur and Sugar as agricultural produce in the schedule etc.
(2.)Acts of other States, for instance, Punjab and Haryana and U.P. were also assailed for similar infirmities. Whether these petitions, which appear to be identical, are reproduction of any of those petitions, which were pending in this Court from before is not relevant but various group of petitions of Punjab and Haryana dealers challenging constitutionality and legality of Act and its provisions including Gur, Khandsari and Shakkar as agricultural produce in the schedule of Punjab Act have been dismissed by different benches presumably because of decisions in Kewal Krishan Puri v. State of Punjab (1979) 3 SCR 1217, Ramesh Chandra v. State of U.P. (1980) 3 SCR 104, Rathi Khandsari Udyog v. State of U.P. (1985) 2 SCR 966 and Sreenivisa General Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1983 SC 1246 (1264).
(3.)Despite these decisions spelling out basic principles for determining validity of marketing legislations dealing with agricultural produce the petitioners were not willing to take it lying down probably because none of these decisions dealt with sugar. It was urged that inclusion of sugar in the Schedule of the Act was arbitrary, primarily because it being a declared commodity of public importance under Entry 52 of List I of Schedule VII the State legislature was precluded from legislating on it. Its inclusion in the Schedule was also assailed as it being a Mill or Factory produce it could not be deemed to the agricultural produce which is basically confined to produce of or from soil.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.