H S JAYANNA AND BROS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click here to view full judgement.
Bhan, J. -
(1.)Leave granted in the special leave petitions.
(2.)Rice millers and commisson agents in the State of Karnataka having licences under the provisions of the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, 1958 filed writ petitions challenging the validity of levy of market fee on rice by the Marketing Committees constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (for short 'the Marketing Act').
(3.)Writ petitions were filed, inter alia, on the grounds as to whether the sale of rice by the rice millers to the State Government or its agents by virtue of the Karnataka Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 (for short 'the Control Order') is a sale for the purpose of S. 65 of the Marketing Act; when once paddy is subjected to levy of market fee, whether on sale of rice, market fee could be levied; whether the rice which is a processing commodity from a paddy could be subjected to market fee; and as to whether the provisions of the Marketing Act were repugnant to the Control Order framed under the Essential Commodities Act. The single Judge allowed the writ petitions, aggrieved against which the State of Karnataka filed writ appeals. Few writ petitions which were filed after the admisson of the writ appeals were ordered to be clubbed with the writ appeals. The writ appeals and the writ petitions were thereafter taken up together and disposed of by passing a common order. Before the Division Bench counsel for the parties addressed arguments on the following points :
(1) Whether sale of rice by the Rice Millers to the State Government or its agent by virtue of procurement order is a sale for the purpose of S. 65(2) of the Marketing Act.
(2) When once paddy is subjected to levy of market fee, whether on sale of rice, market fee can be levied or not.
(3) Whether the rice which is a processing commodity from a paddy will be subjected to market fee or not.
(4) Whether the provisions of the Marketing Act are repugnant to the control order and if so what is its effect.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.