S.K. Jha, J. - (1.) The sole question for determination In that application is as to whether the petitioner is a "trader" within the meaning of Sec. 2(1)(w) of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, I960 (Bihar Act XVI of 1960) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). But before I come to the question I may at once state that pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 2(2) of the Act the petitioner made an application for the decision of the Director of Marketing, Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board (respondent No. 1) to decide the question as to whether it is a trader for the purpose of this Act or not. Respondent No. 1 by his decision dated 15 -5 -83 as incorporated in Annexure 3 to the writ application has held that the petitioner was a 'trader' for the purposes of the Act and it was liable to take out licence from the Market Committee, Chakulia. That is the order which has been challenged in this case.
(2.) The facts, short as they are, are admitted at all hands. The petitioner is a company engaged in the business of mining ore for manufacturing copper and brass, It took over the business, assets and liabilities of M/s. Indian Copper Ltd. and has been nationalised by the Government of India. The petitioner company supplies rice and wheat at 0.45 Paise only per kg. to its workmen and employees at subsidised rate pursuant to an industrial award dated 5 -5 -1951 as food subsidy and/or dearness allowance which in substance forms a part of their wages. The petitioner company also supplies sugar and pulses as well at cost price without any profit being charged and without any profit making motive to extend more facilities to its workmen. A copy of the industrial award has been enclosed as Annexure 1 to the writ application. The supplies of agricultural produce made to the workmen and the employees were without any profit motive and actually, in fact, no profit has ever been made and the company is incurring heavy loss year to year on this account. The petitioner company at no point of time either deals with or comes in contract with the agriculturists and the purchases made by it are from the contractors and sales made by it are to its employees and workmen. In the year 1979 it was directed by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (respondent No. 2) to obtain licence under the Act which led it to file an application in terms of Sec. 2(2) of the Act as aforementioned before the Director of Marketing (respondent No. 1). The petitioner's case is that it is not in any way transacting in any business with the agriculturists and the application of the Act exceeds the aims and objects of the Act and, therefore, the impugned order is illegal and invalid. It has further been submitted that in view of the definition of the expression 'trader' given in the Act in Sec. 2(1)(w) it is not a trader and that is the sole question for determination in this case.
(3.) It is, therefore, necessary to quote in extenso the definition of term "trader" under Sec. 2(1)(w) of the Act which reads thus: 2. (1)(w) "trader" means a person ordinarily engaged in the business of buying and selling agricultural produce as a principal or as a duly authorised agent of one or more principals and includes a commission agent or a person ordinarily engaged in the business of processing of agricultural produce. The Explanation appended thereto brings in its sweep association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not as a person. Therefore, the preliminary question that falls for consideration in this case is as to whether the petitioner is ordinarily engaged in the business of buying and selling agricultural produce either as a principal or through any of its agents. The term 'business' has nowhere been defined in the Act and, therefore, the question, has to be examined as a matter of first impression. If it be held that the petitioner is ordinarily engaged in the business of buying and selling agricultural produce as a principal or through a duly authorised agent then the writ application is bound to fall. If the finding be to the contrary the petitioner is bound to succeed. This, therefore, brings us to the question as to whether the petitioner is engaged "in the business of buying and selling agricultural produce". As has already been stated earlier, the petitioner company is carrying on the business of mining copper ores and manufacturing and selling copper and its alloys; but as per the statutory industrial award aforementioned it has to supply rice and wheat at 0.45 paise per kg. only to its workmen and employees at subsidised rate as food subsidy. It also supplies sugar and pulses as well at cost price without any profit making motive to extend more facility to the workmen. It has also been asserted in the petition and submitted at the Bar that even if it be assumed that the aforesaid transactions amounted to sale within the meaning of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 that by itself would not be enough to hold that the petitioner company is engaged in the business of buying and jelling agricultural produce.;