ITC LIMITED Vs. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE
LAWS(SC)-2002-1-43
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on
January 24,2002
ITC LIMITED
Appellant
VERSUS
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SUBRAHMANYAM CHETTIYAR V. MUTTUSWAMY GOUNDER [REFERRED 16.]THE UNITED PROVINCES V. MST. ATIQA BEGUM AND ORS. [REFERRED 20.]
WAVERLY JUTE MILLS CASE [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR DISTILLERY [REFERRED . (PARA 13) 27.]
FATEH CHAND [REFERRED]
SYNTHETICS AND CHEMICALS [REFERRED . (PARA 13) 15.]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. F N BALSARA [REFERRED 39.]
ZAVERBHAI AMAIDAS VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED R.S. REKHCHAND MOHOTA,1997(6) SCC 12. (PARA 16) 23.]
NAVINCHANDRA MAFATLAL BOMBAY VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY CITY [REFERRED 22.]
TIKA RAMJI OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED 6.]
A S KRISHNA VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED .(PARA 12) 22.]
M P V SUNDARARAMIER AND COMPANY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED 30.]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. G CHAWLA [REFERRED 9.]
DEEP CHAND BRAHMAN LAL SINGH NIRANJAN SINGH HARI SHANKER SHYAM LAL RAM PRASAD JAIN TRANSPORT GENERAL TRADING CO JAIPAL SINGH VIRENDRA PAL GUPTA VISHAMBHAR DAYAL GUPTA REJENDRAPAL SIA RAM BRIJPAL SINGH PANDIT SRINIVAS MADHO RAM MOHI UDD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED THE CENTRAL PROVINCES AND BERAR SALES OF MOTOR SPIRIT AND LUBRICANTS TAXATION ACT,1938,AIR]
CHATURBHAI M PATEL VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED 8.]
HINGIR RAMPUR COAL CO LIMITED VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED 28.]
HINGIR RAMPUR COAL CO LIMITED VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED 47.]
CALCUTTA GAS COMPANY PROPRIETARY LIMITED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED 43.]
CALCUTTA GAS COMPANY PROPRIETARY LIMITED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED 21.]
WAVERLY JUTE MILLS CO LIMITED KELVIN JUTE CO LIMITED VS. RAYMON AND CO INDIA PYT LTD [REFERRED 46.]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL PLAINTIFF THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF MADHYA PRADESH THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF ASSAM THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR THE STATES OF ORISSA THE ADVOCATES GENERAL FOR T VS. UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFENDANT:UNION OF INDIA DEFE [REFERRED SIEL'S CASE,AIR 1996 ALL 135 (PARA 12) 26.]
RAI RAMKRISHNA VS. STATE OF BIHAR IN BOTH THE APPEALLS [REFERRED 24.]
STATE OF ORISSA IN BOTH THE APPEALS STATE OF ORISSA IN BOTH THE APPEALS H R S MURTHY VS. M A TULLOCH AND CO :MISRILAL JAIN:M A TULLOCH AND CO [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL COMM ITTEE AMRITSAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND (4TH END.) VOL. 29 PARA 601. (PARA 154) 45.]
HARAKCHAND RATANCHAND BANTHIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED 7.]
HARAKCHAND RATANCHAND BANTHIA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED . (PARA 16) 45.]
BAIJNATH KADIO VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HARBHAJAN SINGH DHILLON [REFERRED]
KANNAN DEVAN HILLS PRODUCE VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THE STATE OF KERALA KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THE STATE OF KERALA KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD THE STATE OF KERALA KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD KERALA S VS. INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO LTD [REFERRED 17.]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. CHANAN MAL:STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED]
FATEHCHAND HIMMATLAL MAHADEO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED 44.]
FATEHCHAND HIMMATLAL MAHADEO VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED 41.]
M KARUNANIDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED BELSUND SUGAR COMPANY,1999 9 SCC 620 12.]
GANGA SUGAR CORPORATION LTD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
ISHWARI KHETAN SUGAR MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED R B LACHMANDAS SUGAR AND GENERAL MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED 11.]
WESTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED BHARAT ALUMINIUM COMPANY LIMITED VS. SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KORBA:SPECIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KORBA [REFERRED]
HOECHST PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED JUMNA FLOUR AND OIL MILLS PHARMA ASSOCIATES VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED]
LOK PAL SINGH STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH :CHARLI RAJA [REFERRED 5.]
I T C LIMITED VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED]
ACCOUNTANT AND SECRETARIAL SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED 40.]
EXPRESS HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED 27.]
INDIA CEMENT LIMITED VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED 18.]
SYNTHETICS AND CHEMICALS LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED 26.]
BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED TATA IRON AND STEEL CO LIMITED CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR:INDUSTRIAL FUEL MARKETING COMPANY [REFERRED]
B VISWANATHIAH AND COMPANY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED INDIAN ALUMINIUM COMPANY,1992 3 SCC 580 13.]
ORISSA CEMENT LIMITED TATA IRON AND STEEL CO LIMITED TATA IRON AND STEEL CO LIMITED STATE OF ORISSA ORIENT PAPER AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED ORIENT PAPER AND INDUSTRIES LIMITED STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. STATE OF ORISSA:STATE OF BIHAR:ORIENT PAPER AND INDUSTRIES LTD:STATE OF ORISSA:HIRALAL RAMESHWAR PRASAD [REFERRED 35.]
DALMIA INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED]
S R BOMMAI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED 31.]
INDIAN ALUMINIUM CO VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. MCDOWELL AND CO [REFERRED TO]
SIEL LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. YASANGI VENKATESWARA RAO [REFERRED CALCUTTA GAS,(1962) SUPP. SCR 1. (PARA 9) 11.]
Cited Judgements :-
MAA UMA AGRI FOOD PVT LIMITED VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2014-12-38] [REFERRED TO]M/S OMKAR AGENCY & ANR VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. VAM ORGANIC CHEMICALS LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2003-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
GTN ENTERPRISES LIMITED VS. SUPERINTENDENT REGULATED MARKET COMMITTEE [LAWS(MAD)-2011-10-118] [REFERRED TO]
BALAJI MINERALS VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2006-12-215] [REFERRED TO]
DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD. VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2017-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2013-7-105] [REFERRED TO]
RAMASAMY KOUNDER VS. ASOKAN [LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-76] [REFERRED]
FORUM FOR PEOPLES COLLECTIVE EFFORTS (FPCE) VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-2021-5-4] [REFERRED TO]
CELLULAR OPERATORS ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2011-4-247] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTA BHAI JETHA BHAI VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION SAGAR [LAWS(MPH)-2002-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
GWALIOR SUGAR CO LTD VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2006-7-9] [REFERRED TO]
M/S OMKAR AGENCY VS. THE FOOD SAFETY AND STANDADRS AUTHORITY OF INDIA [LAWS(PAT)-2016-7-60] [REFERRED TO]
BIMOLANGSHU ROY (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS. STATE OF ASSAM & ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2017-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
BIHAR DISTILLERS & BOTTLERS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-5-15] [REFERRED TO]
KULDIP NAYAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2006-8-65] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL SEED ASSOCIATION OF INDIA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-8-158] [REFERRED TO]
SAI TRADERS VS. STATE OF GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-6-111] [REFERRED TO]
DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL VS. THE CHIEF MINISTER & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2021-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
JAYANT VERMA AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2018-2-95] [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI VS. UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2018-7-41] [REFERRED TO]
JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.& ANR. VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.& ANR. VS. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
KAMADHENU TRADERS VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-11-126] [REFERRED TO]
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD VS. DEPUTY EXAMINER [LAWS(KER)-2020-5-62] [REFERRED TO]
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY TEACHERS ASSOCIATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2002-8-81] [REFERRED TO]
UPPARA VEERENDRA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2021-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGER, SPINNING UNIT, GANGAPUR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2006-10-87] [REFERRED]
DHARAMPAL SATYAPAL LTD VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2009-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
TALCHER MUNICIPALITY VS. TALCHER REGULATED MKT COMMITTEE [LAWS(SC)-2004-7-63] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2004-1-84] [REFERRED TO]
NARMADA BACHAO ANDOLAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2008-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
TAPA TRADERS GWALIOR VS. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI SAMITI GWALIOR [LAWS(MPH)-2008-8-60] [REFERRED TO]
J P TOBACCO PRODUCTS VS. KRISHI UPAJ MANDI [LAWS(MPH)-2009-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. U.P. JAL NIGAM [LAWS(ALL)-2011-9-257] [REFERRED TO]
EAST U P SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION LKO VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
GODAVARI POLYMER VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2007-4-170] [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. CHENNAI, TAMILNADU AND OTHERS VS. ANIMAL WELFARE BOARD AND ANOTHER [LAWS(SC)-2016-11-53] [REFERRED TO]
K RAMAKRISHNAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-3-156] [REFERRED TO]
NORTH EAST REGION FINSERVICES LIMITED AND ANR VS. STATE OF MIZORAM AND ORS [LAWS(GAU)-2018-7-77] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMENDRA M. JANI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-6-74] [REFERRED TO]
KESERWANI ZARDA BHANDAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2003-7-28] [REFERRED TO]
PRAGYASINGH CHANDRAPALSINGH THAKUR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT [LAWS(BOM)-2013-10-97] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV KUMAR VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2013-12-34] [REFERRED TO]
MD BABUL AKTAR VS. MD NAZIR HOSSAIN [LAWS(CAL)-2019-10-17] [REFERRED TO]
M BABU RAO VS. DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OP SOC OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY THE VASAVI CO OP URBAN BANK LTD [LAWS(APH)-2005-7-50] [REFERRED TO]
DWARAPUDI SIVARAMA REDDY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2023-3-62] [REFERRED TO]
ARUNA SUGARS LIMITED VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2003-12-114] [REFERRED TO]
GTN ENTERPRISES LIMITED SPINNING DIVISION VS. PATSPIN INDIA LIMITED, 2/85-B UDUMALAI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-9-243] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY ANJAY STORES VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS [LAWS(CAL)-2017-11-128] [REFERRED TO]
ITC LIMITED VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2006-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
ZAKIRHUSSAIN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2003-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
ZAKIRHUSSAIN VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2003-3-43] [REFERRED TO]
COL JAGMOHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2010-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
ITC LIMITED VS. SECRETARY GRADE I AGRICULTURAL MARKET COMMITTEE [LAWS(APH)-2010-10-42] [REFERRED TO]
RANGA REDDY DISTRICT PRADESH PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT HYDERABAD VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2004-1-74] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAVILAS TOBACCO COMPANY VS. SECRETARY ERODE DISTRICT AGRICULTURAL MARKETING COMMITTEE [LAWS(MAD)-2011-2-274] [REFERRED TO]
UCO BANK AND ANR. VS. DIPAK DEBBARMA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2016-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
OCL INDIA LTD VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-2022-11-11] [REFERRED TO]
S BAGAVATHY VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-3-287] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. K PURSHOTTAN REDDY [LAWS(SC)-2003-3-100] [REFERRED]
BHIM SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-2010-5-31] [REFERRED TO]
MULTI COMMODITY EXCHANGE OF INDIA LIMITED VS. CENTRAL ELECTRICITY REGULATORY COMMISSION [LAWS(BOM)-2011-2-49] [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG GANPATI CHAUGULE VS. VISHWASRAO PATIL MURGUD SAHAKARI BANK LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-2020-5-2] [REFERRED TO]
M/S GUJARAT AMBUJA EXPORTS LTD VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2015-12-22] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. FR. WILLIAM FERNANDEZ [LAWS(SC)-2017-10-69] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.
(2.)I. T. C. Limited filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Patna High Court against an order of assessment passed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Monghyr, demanding a sum of Rs. 35,87,072. 00, inter alia on the ground that the purchase of unprocessed tobacco leaves from the growers, being the subject-matter of the levy, the Market Committee has no power to levy and collect fee. The stand taken before the High Court was that tobacco leaves neither having been bought or sold within the market area and the power to levy and collect market fee under Section 27 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, being on the Agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area, the Market Committee was not entitled to levy market fee. The Division Bench however without entering into the aforesaid controversy, came to the conclusion that no clear notice appears to have been given to the company to produce the records for the purpose of satisfying the Market Committee that the tobacco leaves in question were either not processed or exported from the market area and, therefore, the company must be given a fresh opportunity of adducing all the relevant documents before the Market Committee to escape the presumption arising out of proviso to Section 27 of the Act. The High Court having remitted the matter to the Market Committee for passing a fresh assessment order, the company has approached this Court, which is the subject-matter in Civil Appeal No. 6453 of 2001 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12374/84. When the Special Leave Petition was listed before a Bench of this Court in February, 1987, the judgment of this Court in I. T. C. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, reported in 1985 Supp (1) SCR 145 had been placed. The Bench tentatively being of the view that the decision of this Court requires reconsideration directed that the matter be placed before a Constitution Bench of five Judges and that is how the matter has been placed before the Constitution Bench. Subsequent to the Bihar case, similar cases arising out of judgment of other High Courts on being assailed before this Court, those cases also have been tagged on to this case. When this batch of cases had been earlier listed before a Constitution Bench and arguments had been advanced on behalf of company, the Court felt that it would be appropriate to issue notice to the Attorney General and the Advocate Generals of all the States, as most of the States have their State Act called the Agricultural Produce Market Act and pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10th of April, 2001, notices were issued to Advocate Generals of all the States as well as to the Ld. Attorney General, whereafter this case has been heard by this Bench.
(3.)Different State Legislatures have enacted Agricultural Produce and Markets Act for regulating sale and purchase of the agricultural produce within the market area and for levy and collection of market-fee. Parliament having declared that it is expedient in the public interest that Union should take under its control the tobacco industry, enacted the Tobacco Board Act, 1975 which is an Act to provide for the development of tobacco industry under the control of the Union Government. Under the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, the State Government having notified 'tobacco' as an agricultural produce, the purchase and sale of tobacco is to be regulated under the provisions of the State Act and the Market Committee has the right to levy and collect market-fee on such sale and purchase of the notified agricultural produce viz. the tobacco. In a case arising from the State of Karnataka, this Court by a majority of 2 : 1, came to hold that the tobacco industry having been taken over by the Central Government under Entry 52 of List I and having passed the Tobacco Board Act, the State Legislature ceases to have any jurisdiction to legislate in that field and, therefore, the provisions contained in the Karnataka Act, entitling the Market Committee to levy market-fee in respect of sale and purchase of tobacco within the market area directly, collides with the Tobacco Board Act, 1975 and as such the State Act so far as it relates to tobacco was struck down. The minority view expressed by Justice Mukherjee was however to the effect that both Acts can operate in their respective fields and there is no repugnancy if both the Acts are considered in the light of their respective true nature and character. The majority view relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Orissa v. M. A. Tulloch and Co. , 1964 (4) SCR 461 and Baij Nath Kedia v. State of Bihar and Ors. , 1969 (3) SCC 838.
(2.)I. T. C. Limited filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Patna High Court against an order of assessment passed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Monghyr, demanding a sum of Rs. 35,87,072. 00, inter alia on the ground that the purchase of unprocessed tobacco leaves from the growers, being the subject-matter of the levy, the Market Committee has no power to levy and collect fee. The stand taken before the High Court was that tobacco leaves neither having been bought or sold within the market area and the power to levy and collect market fee under Section 27 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, being on the Agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area, the Market Committee was not entitled to levy market fee. The Division Bench however without entering into the aforesaid controversy, came to the conclusion that no clear notice appears to have been given to the company to produce the records for the purpose of satisfying the Market Committee that the tobacco leaves in question were either not processed or exported from the market area and, therefore, the company must be given a fresh opportunity of adducing all the relevant documents before the Market Committee to escape the presumption arising out of proviso to Section 27 of the Act. The High Court having remitted the matter to the Market Committee for passing a fresh assessment order, the company has approached this Court, which is the subject-matter in Civil Appeal No. 6453 of 2001 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12374/84. When the Special Leave Petition was listed before a Bench of this Court in February, 1987, the judgment of this Court in I. T. C. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, reported in 1985 Supp (1) SCR 145 had been placed. The Bench tentatively being of the view that the decision of this Court requires reconsideration directed that the matter be placed before a Constitution Bench of five Judges and that is how the matter has been placed before the Constitution Bench. Subsequent to the Bihar case, similar cases arising out of judgment of other High Courts on being assailed before this Court, those cases also have been tagged on to this case. When this batch of cases had been earlier listed before a Constitution Bench and arguments had been advanced on behalf of company, the Court felt that it would be appropriate to issue notice to the Attorney General and the Advocate Generals of all the States, as most of the States have their State Act called the Agricultural Produce Market Act and pursuant to the order of this Court dated 10th of April, 2001, notices were issued to Advocate Generals of all the States as well as to the Ld. Attorney General, whereafter this case has been heard by this Bench.
(3.)Different State Legislatures have enacted Agricultural Produce and Markets Act for regulating sale and purchase of the agricultural produce within the market area and for levy and collection of market-fee. Parliament having declared that it is expedient in the public interest that Union should take under its control the tobacco industry, enacted the Tobacco Board Act, 1975 which is an Act to provide for the development of tobacco industry under the control of the Union Government. Under the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, the State Government having notified 'tobacco' as an agricultural produce, the purchase and sale of tobacco is to be regulated under the provisions of the State Act and the Market Committee has the right to levy and collect market-fee on such sale and purchase of the notified agricultural produce viz. the tobacco. In a case arising from the State of Karnataka, this Court by a majority of 2 : 1, came to hold that the tobacco industry having been taken over by the Central Government under Entry 52 of List I and having passed the Tobacco Board Act, the State Legislature ceases to have any jurisdiction to legislate in that field and, therefore, the provisions contained in the Karnataka Act, entitling the Market Committee to levy market-fee in respect of sale and purchase of tobacco within the market area directly, collides with the Tobacco Board Act, 1975 and as such the State Act so far as it relates to tobacco was struck down. The minority view expressed by Justice Mukherjee was however to the effect that both Acts can operate in their respective fields and there is no repugnancy if both the Acts are considered in the light of their respective true nature and character. The majority view relied upon the decisions of this Court in State of Orissa v. M. A. Tulloch and Co. , 1964 (4) SCR 461 and Baij Nath Kedia v. State of Bihar and Ors. , 1969 (3) SCC 838.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.