THE NASHIK AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, NASHIKversusSHRI. N.G. THAKKAR AND SONS. AND ORS.

                                                                       7-WP-11034-2015.doc


                   Shabnoor

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                 WRIT PETITION NO. 11034 OF 2015

                   The Nashik Agricultural Produce
SHABNOOR           Market Committee, Nashik,
AYUB
PATHAN             Having its Office at Anand Rushi Marg,
Digitally signed
                   Dindori Road, Market Yard,
by SHABNOOR
AYUB PATHAN        Panchawati, Nashik.                                   … Petitioner
Date: 2026.09.01
11:54:39 +0530




                                           V/s.
                   1.    Shri. N.G. Thakkar And Sons
                         Godavari Service Industrial Estate,
                         Plot No. 20 & 21,
                         Near Old Tirangana Industrial Estate,
                         New Bombay, Agra Road, Nashik.
                   2.    The Director of Marketing,
                         Maharashtra State, Pune
                         Having its office at New Central Building
                         2nd Floor, Pune, District Pune.
                   3.     The State of Maharashtra
                         (Department of Agricultural, Marketing
                         Through Chief Minister for State)               … Respondents

                   Mr. Nikhil Pujari i/b Mr. Pramod N. Joshi, for Petitioner.
                   Mr. Himanshu B. Takke, for Respondent No.1.
                   Dr. Dhruti Kapadia, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 – State.


                                   CORAM                  : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                   RESERVED ON            : AUGUST 24, 2026

                                   PRONOUNCED ON          : SEPTEMBER 1, 2026




                                                    1
                                                     7-WP-11034-2015.doc


JUDGMENT:

1.   The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition
challenging the legality and correctness of the Judgment and
Order dated 4 September 2014 passed by the State Government
in Appeal No. 2 of 2012. By the said order, the State
Government confirmed the earlier Order dated 15 October 2011
passed by the Director of Marketing, Respondent No. 2. The
Director of Marketing had held that the product known in
Marathi as “Hing” and in English as “Asafoetida” is not covered
by the agricultural produce mentioned in the Notification dated
8 December 2005. On that basis, it was held that the Petitioner
could not recover market fee on the said product.

2.   The    Petitioner   is   an   “Agricultural   Produce    Market
Committee” constituted under the Maharashtra Agricultural
Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963 and
the Rules of 1967 framed thereunder. These are hereinafter
referred to as the “Said Act” and the “Said Rules”. The Petitioner
is responsible for regulating the sale and purchase of
agricultural produce within the “market area” of the Petitioner
Committee. Respondent No. 1 is carrying on business in
“Asafoetida” within the “market area” of the Petitioner
Committee. The Petitioner had recovered market fee on the sale
of “Asafoetida” under Section 31 of the Said Act. The Petitioner
relied upon the Notification dated 8 December 2005, which
included “Masalyache Padartha” (Spices) among the specified




                                   2
                                                   7-WP-11034-2015.doc


agricultural produce. Respondent No. 1 thereafter approached
the Director of Marketing and made a representation. It was
contended that “Hing”, that is, “Asafoetida”, is not mentioned in
the Schedule to the Notification as an “agricultural produce”.
Therefore, according to Respondent No. 1, the Petitioner had no
authority to recover market fee on “Hing”.

3.   The Director of Marketing, Respondent No. 2, by Order
dated 15 October 2011, accepted the said contention. He held
that “Hing”, that is, “Asafoetida”, was not an agricultural
produce covered by the relevant Notification. On that basis, he
held that the Petitioner was not entitled to recover market fee on
“Hing”. According to the Petitioner, this finding was erroneous.
The Petitioner challenged the Order dated 15 October 2011 by
filing Appeal No. 2 of 2012 before the State Government. In the
Appeal Memo, the Petitioner pointed out the material facts and
circumstances to show that recovery of market fee on “Hing” or
“Asafoetida” was permissible under the Said Act and the
Notification dated 8 December 2005. The Petitioner placed
reliance upon the material which, according to it, showed that
“Hing” falls within the category of “Masalyache Padartha”,
namely, spices. The Minister of State, by Order dated 4
September 2014, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner.
According to the Petitioner, the Appeal was dismissed without
properly considering its submissions and without giving proper
and sufficient reasons. The Petitioner therefore contends that the
impugned Order is liable to be set aside. It is contended that the



                                3
                                                   7-WP-11034-2015.doc


State Government did not properly consider the case put
forward by the Petitioner and did not give adequate reasons for
confirming the Order dated 15 October 2011.

4.   Mr. Nikhil Pujari     learned Advocate for the Petitioner
submits that the information obtained by the Petitioner from the
Wikipedia website regarding “Hing”, that is, “Asafoetida”,
describes the product as a “Masalyache Padartha”, namely, a
“Spice”. According to the Petitioner, if “Hing” is a spice, it is
covered by the Notification dated 8 December 2005, which
includes “Masalyache Padartha” (Spices). The Petitioner has
relied upon the provisions of the Spices Board Act, 1986. It is
submitted that the definition of “spices” under the said Act, read
with its Schedule, includes “Asafoetida” at Serial No. 34. On the
basis of this material, the Petitioner submits that “Hing” is a
spice and is therefore covered as an “Agricultural Produce”
under the Said Act. It is submitted that the Authorities below
were required to consider this material and the submissions
made by the Petitioner. According to the Petitioner, the
Authorities have failed to do so and have failed to give proper
and sufficient reasons for their conclusions. The Petitioner
therefore submits that the Appeal has been dismissed without a
proper and reasoned speaking order.

5.   On the other hand, Mr. Himanshu B. Takke the learned
Advocate for Respondent No. 1 has relied upon the Government
Gazette dated 8 December 2005. He submits that, though the
said Gazette issued under Section 4 of the Maharashtra


                                4
                                                    7-WP-11034-2015.doc


Agricultural Produce Market Committee Act contains several
specified items, it only refers to “मसाल्याचे पदार्थ” (Masalyache
Padarth). According to him, the expression “ मसाल्याचे पदार्थ” does
not include “Hing”. He submits that even the Schedule attached
to the Said Act does not mention “Hing”. Therefore, according to
Respondent No. 1, “Hing” cannot be treated as a specified
agricultural produce merely because it may generally be
understood as a spice. On this basis, it is submitted that the
Appellate Authority was correct in holding that the Petitioner
could not recover market fee on the product described as
“Hing”.

6.    Ms. Kapadia, learned AGP, placed on record a detailed note
dealing with the legal position relating to “Hing” and spices. The
note refers to the Central legal Act as well as the Maharashtra
legal Act. It considers the decisions dealing with “Hing” and
spices and makes a comparative examination of the legal
position   concerning    pure    Asafoetida   and    compounded
Asafoetida, that is, “Hing”. As regards the Central Acts, reliance
is first placed on the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Chapter 9 of the
First Schedule to the said Act deals with coffee, tea, mate and
spices. Supplementary Note 2 to Chapter 9 gives a functional
meaning to the word “spice”. It refers to a group of vegetable
products, including seeds, which are rich in essential oils and
aromatic principles and which, because of their characteristic
taste, are used as condiments. The provision recognises such
products whether they are in whole, crushed or powdered form.



                                5
                                                    7-WP-11034-2015.doc


The learned AGP submits that this provision is relevant because
the expression “spice” is being used as a statutory expression for
the purpose of tariff classification. According to the note, the
nature of the ingredients, their aromatic properties, their
characteristic taste and their main use as condiments are
relevant. Thus, the provision does not proceed only on the basis
of a fixed list of names of spices. It provides a test based upon
the nature and use of the product. The learned AGP has relied
upon Supplementary Note 3 to contend that the position
remains the same even in case of a compounded product. The
said provision provides that addition of other substances will not
take a mixture outside the spice heading if the mixture
continues to have the essential character of a spice. It recognises
products known as masalas. Therefore, according to the learned
AGP, merely because some other substance is added to a spice,
the product does not cease to be a spice. The relevant question is
whether the product continues to retain the essential character
of the spice.

7.    The relevant statutory definition relied upon by the
learned AGP reads as follows:

      “Spice” means a group of vegetable products (including
      seeds, etc.), rich in essential oils and aromatic principles,
      and which, because of their characteristic taste, are used
      as condiments. These products may be whole or in crushed
      or powdered form. [Customs Tariff Act (51 of 1975), Sch
      section II, Chap. 9, Note 2, Supplementary Note 2; Central
      Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (5 of 1986), Sch I, Chapter 9, Supp.



                                 6
                                                     7-WP-11034-2015.doc


      Note (2) as substituted by Central              Excise    Tariff
      (Amendment) Act (5 of 2005), section 3]
8.    The next legislation relied upon by the learned AGP is the
Spices Board Act, 1986. Section 2(n) of the said Act defines
“spices” by referring to the Schedule to the Act. The Schedule
contains a specific list of spices. At Serial No. 34, “Asafoetida” is
expressly included. The Schedule covers the listed spices in
different forms, including mixtures where the spice content is
predominant.

9.    Thus, according to the learned AGP, the Spices Board Act
gives a direct answer to the question whether “Asafoetida” is a
spice. Asafoetida is included at Serial No. 34 of the Schedule. It
is therefore not necessary, for the purposes of that Act, to decide
whether Asafoetida is a spice only by considering its use or its
botanical characteristics. Its specific inclusion in the Schedule is
sufficient to show that Parliament has treated “Asafoetida” as a
spice under the said Act.

10.   Section 2(n) of the Spices Board Act, 1986, relied upon by
the learned AGP, reads as follows:

      “Spices” means the spices specified in the Schedule:
      Provided that the Central Government may, if satisfied that
      it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do,
      by notification in the official Gazette, add any other spice
      to the Schedule or omit any spice therefrom. [Spices Board
      Act (10 of 1986), section 2(n)]




                                  7
                                                     7-WP-11034-2015.doc


11.   The   learned   AGP   has      thereafter   referred   to    the
Compounded Asafoetida Grading and Marking Rules, 1984.
These Rules were framed under the Agricultural Produce
(Grading and Marking) Act, 1937, which provides the statutory
Act for grading and marking agricultural produce. The said
Rules apply to compounded Asafoetida produced in India. The
Rules use the expression “Compounded Asafoetida (Bandhani
Hing)”. Schedule I prescribes the quality requirements for such
product. It describes compounded Asafoetida as a mixture made
from one or more varieties of Asafoetida, namely, Irani or
Pathani hing, along with gum arabic and edible starches or
cereal flour. The learned AGP therefore submits that Indian law
has treated compounded “Hing” as a regulated form of
Asafoetida. It has not treated it as a different commodity having
no connection with Asafoetida.

12.   Schedule I to the said Rules provides three grades of
Compounded Asafoetida, namely, Extra Special, Special and
Standard. The grades are determined on the basis of
requirements such as total ash, ash insoluble in dilute
hydrochloric acid, alcoholic extract and moisture. These
requirements are prescribed as percentages by weight. The
Schedule contains general requirements applicable to all grades.
The general requirements provide that Compounded Asafoetida,
or Bandhani Hing, must be prepared by blending one or more
varieties of Asafoetida, whether Irani or Pathani hing or both,
with gum arabic and edible starches or edible cereal flour. The



                                 8
                                                  7-WP-11034-2015.doc


product must be free from colophony resin, galbanum resin,
ammoniacum resin, other foreign resin, coal tar dyes, mineral
pigments and other foreign matter. It must be free from insect or
fungus attack, rodent contamination and foreign odour. The
Indian standard method of testing published in IS 7807 of 1975,
as amended from time to time, is prescribed for testing the
product.

13.   Schedule II to the Rules deals with the design of the grade
designation mark. The prescribed mark contains the words
“Produce of India”, an outline map of India, the word
“AGMARK” and the figure of a rising sun. Rule 5 requires this
mark, supplied by the Agricultural Marketing Adviser, to be
affixed to every container along with the relevant grade
designation. The Rules prescribe the manner in which the mark
is to be placed on different types of containers. The
Compounded Asafoetida Grading and Marking Rules, 1984 were
published in the Gazette of India, Part II, Section 3(ii), by
Notification S.O. 1156 dated 7 April 1984. Thus, the statutory
recognition and regulation of compounded Asafoetida in India is
not of recent origin.

14.   The learned AGP has referred to the Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006 and the regulations framed thereunder. The
Food Safety and Standards Act is a Central legislation. Though
enforcement functions are performed by State authorities, the
standards relating to food are prescribed under the Central Acts.
Section 30 of the Act requires the State Government to appoint a


                                9
                                                      7-WP-11034-2015.doc


Commissioner of Food Safety for effective implementation of the
Act and the rules and regulations made thereunder. Regulation
2.9.29 of the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products
Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011 separately
deals with “Asafoetida (Hing or Hingra)” and with compounded
Asafoetida   or   Bandhani     Hing.   The    regulation    identifies
Asafoetida as an oleogumresin obtained from specified species
of Ferula and prescribes requirements relating to its quality. It
separately recognises compounded Asafoetida as a preparation
containing Asafoetida along with permitted materials.

15.   According to the learned AGP, the fact that the Regulations
separately   prescribe   standards     for   pure   Asafoetida     and
compounded Asafoetida does not mean that compounded
“Hing” has ceased to be “Hing”. The separate treatment is for
prescribing the quality and composition of a particular form of
the product. It does not establish that the compounded product
has lost its identity as Asafoetida.

16.   The learned AGP has referred to the legal position in the
United States regarding Asafoetida. It is submitted that United
States law does not have a general statutory category of “spice”
in the same manner as the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or the
Spices Board Act, 1986 in India. Asafoetida is dealt with under
the federal statutes relating to substances added to food. The
United States Food and Drug Administration maintains a
database known as “Substances Added to Food”, earlier known
as EAFUS. In that database, Asafoetida is mentioned as


                                 10
                                                    7-WP-11034-2015.doc


“Asafetida, Gum (Ferula assafoetida L.)”. The entry refers to
names commonly used for the product, including hing and
heeng, and identifies its use in food as a flavouring agent or
adjuvant.

17.   The learned AGP submits that the regulatory basis for this
entry is Title 21, Section 182.20 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. The provision places asafetida among essential oils,
oleoresins    and   natural   extractives   which   are   generally
recognised as safe for their intended use within the meaning of
Section 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The
provision identifies the botanical source as Ferula assafoetida L.
and related species of Ferula. It is pointed out that the Flavor
and Extract Manufacturers Association has assigned Asafoetida
FEMA number 2107 under its generally recognised as safe
assessment programme. The learned AGP has therefore placed
the Indian and United States legal positions for comparison. In
India, Asafoetida is expressly included in the statutory Schedule
of spices under the Spices Board Act and is separately regulated
under the grading, marking and food safety laws. In the United
States, there is no similar general statutory Schedule of spices.
Asafoetida is instead dealt with as a flavouring substance which
is generally recognised as safe. The legal methods adopted by
the two countries are therefore different. However, the
underlying product remains identified by its botanical identity as
Asafoetida.




                                 11
                                                    7-WP-11034-2015.doc


REASONS AND FINDINGS:

18.   I have considered the Petition, the orders challenged by
the Petitioner, the submissions made for the Petitioner and
Respondent No. 1 and the detailed note placed on record by Ms.
Kapadia, learned AGP. I have considered the provisions of the
Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act,
1963, the relevant Schedule and the Central laws relied upon by
the Petitioner. The issue is limited. However, it has to be decided
by reading the relevant provisions of the Said Act together with
the material placed before the Court. The Petitioner says that
“Hing”, that is “Asafoetida”, is a spice. Therefore, according to
the Petitioner, it comes within “मसाल्याचे पदार्थ” or spices
mentioned in the Notification dated 8 December 2005.
Respondent No. 1 disputes this. According to Respondent No. 1,
merely because Hing is commonly known as a spice, it cannot be
treated as covered by the Notification. It is pointed out that the
word “hing” is not separately mentioned in the Schedule.
Therefore, according to Respondent No. 1, market fee cannot be
recovered on a commodity which is not specified. The State
Government has accepted this view in the impugned order. The
question, therefore, is whether “Hing” can be brought within the
entry of “मसाल्याचे पदार्थ” on a proper reading of the Said Act and
the material placed before the Court.

19.   For deciding this question, the scheme of the Said Act first
requires consideration. Section 2(1)(a) defines “Agricultural
produce” as “all produce whether processed or not of


                                12
                                                   7-WP-11034-2015.doc


agriculture,   horticulture,   animal   husbandry,     apiculture,
pisciculture, fisheries and forest specified in the Schedule”. The
words “specified in the Schedule” are important. They show that
every product coming from agriculture or the other activities
mentioned in the provision does not become “agricultural
produce” under the Said Act. It must be specified in the
Schedule. Therefore, the Schedule has to be considered while
deciding whether a commodity is agricultural produce under the
Said Act. Under Section 4, the State Government can declare
that “the marketing of the agricultural produce specified in the
notification shall be regulated under this Act”. Therefore, the
produce which is sought to be regulated must be covered by the
statutory provisions and the relevant notification. The Market
Committee cannot levy market fee generally on every article
which may be considered an agricultural or food product.
Section 31 gives the Market Committee power “to levy and
collect fees ... from every purchaser of agricultural produce
marketed in the market area”. Thus, Section 31 cannot be read
by. It does not give power to levy fee on every commodity. The
commodity must first be “agricultural produce” under Section
2(1)(a). It must thereafter be marketed in the market area in the
manner contemplated by the Said Act. Only then the power to
levy market fee under Section 31 can arise.

20.   In view of this position, the wording of the Schedule
becomes important. Under the heading “Condiment, spices and
others”, several commodities are mentioned. These include



                                13
                                                       7-WP-11034-2015.doc


“Turmeric”,    “Ginger”,    “Garlic”,       “Coriander”,     “Chillies”,
“Cardamom and peppers”, “variali”, “Cummin (Jiru)”, “Rai
(mustard)” and “Methi”, apart from other items. However,
“Hing” or “Asafoetida” is not separately mentioned in the
Schedule placed before the Court. But this fact alone cannot end
the matter. The heading uses the words “Condiment, spices and
others”. The Notification uses the expression “मसाल्याचे पदार्थ”.
Therefore, it has to be seen whether these words cover a class of
commodities generally, or whether they are restricted only to the
commodities whose individual names are separately mentioned
in the Schedule.

21.    The Petitioner has placed material to show the nature of
Asafoetida and has contended that Hing is a spice. The
Petitioner has particularly relied upon the Spices Board Act,
1986. Section 2(n) of that Act provides:

       “"Spices" means the spices specified in the Schedule…”

22.    The Schedule to that Act includes “Asafoetida” at Serial
No. 34. Therefore, under the Spices Board Act, Asafoetida is
clearly recognised by law as a spice. This material supports the
Petitioner's submission to this extent that Hing cannot be said to
be outside the legal meaning of spice. This is not only based
upon    common     understanding.       A    Central   Act    includes
“Asafoetida” in its Schedule of spices. Therefore, the submission
that Hing cannot be regarded as a spice at all cannot be
accepted.




                                14
                                                      7-WP-11034-2015.doc


23.   The Petitioner has relied upon the Customs Tariff Act
material. The relevant statutory definition states:

      “"Spice" means a group of vegetable products (including
      seeds, etc.), rich in essential oils and aromatic principles,
      and which, because of their characteristic taste, are used
      as condiments. These products may be whole or in crushed
      or powdered form.”
24.   This definition considers the nature and use of the
product. It refers to essential oils, aromatic principles,
characteristic taste and use as condiments. Therefore, the word
“spice” is not limited only to those commodities whose exact
names are separately mentioned in a statutory list.

25.   The learned AGP has relied upon the provisions relating to
mixtures or compounded spices. Her submission is that addition
of another substance does not by make the product cease to be a
spice, if the essential character of the spice continues. This
submission is relevant for understanding the identity of the
product. However, another question still remains. It has to be
decided whether the relevant entry under the Maharashtra
legislation covers such product. Thus, the question of what the
product is and the question of what the Maharashtra Schedule
covers have to be considered separately.

26.   The Compounded Asafoetida Grading and Marking Rules,
1984 are relevant. These Rules use the expression “Compounded
Asafoetida (Bandhani Hing)” and prescribe standards for the
same. The Rules provide that the product is prepared by



                                15
                                                   7-WP-11034-2015.doc


blending varieties of Asafoetida, including Irani or Pathani hing,
with gum arabic and edible starches or edible cereal flour. This
shows that Indian law has recognised compounded Hing as a
regulated form of Asafoetida for a long time. It is not treated as
a different commodity. The Food Safety and Standards Act
separately recognises “Asafoetida (Hing or Hingra)” and
“compounded Asafoetida or Bandhani Hing”. This shows that
Hing is a recognised product which is regulated by law. But this
alone does not decide whether market fee can be recovered
under   the   Maharashtra     Agricultural   Produce    Marketing
(Regulation) Act. That question has to be decided under the
Said Act and the relevant Notification. To this extent the
Petitioner's submission is accepted. The material before the
Court, read with the Central enactments relied upon by the
learned AGP, shows that “Hing” or “Asafoetida” is recognised in
statutory law as a spice. It shows that compounded Hing
continues to be recognised as a form of Asafoetida. Therefore,
the view that Hing cannot be treated as a spice in law cannot be
accepted. However, this finding alone does not give the
Petitioner right to recover market fee. The question of levy has
to be separately considered. The power under Section 31 has to
be read with the definition of “agricultural produce” under
Section 2(1)(a), the Schedule and the relevant notification
issued under the Said Act. A Central law which recognises
Asafoetida as a spice cannot by amend the Schedule of the
Maharashtra legislation. There is no material before the Court to




                                16
                                                    7-WP-11034-2015.doc


show that the Spices Board Act or the Customs Tariff Act has
added “Asafoetida” to the Schedule of the Said Act.

27.   The Petitioner relies upon the expression “मसाल्याचे पदार्थ”
used in the Notification dated 8 December 2005. However,
merely because Hing is a spice, it cannot be said that every
product which is called a spice in law or in common use
becomes covered by the Maharashtra Schedule. The words used
in the Notification have to be understood in the context of the
Said Act. Since the Act permits recovery of market fee, the
commodity on which the fee is charged must clearly come
within the statutory language. At the same time, the submission
of Respondent No. 1 that because “Hing” is not separately
mentioned, it must be excluded, cannot be accepted. If the State
Government has used a class expression such as “मसाल्याचे
पदार्थ”, then a commodity which properly falls within that class
cannot be excluded only because its individual name is not
separately mentioned. Otherwise, the general expression would
have little meaning.

28.   The question, therefore, is what is the normal and proper
scope of “मसाल्याचे पदार्थ” in the relevant Notification. The other
entries in the Schedule are useful for this purpose. Turmeric,
ginger, garlic, coriander, chillies, cardamom and peppers, cumin,
mustard and methi are placed under “Condiment, spices and
others”. These commodities are used as spices or condiments.
The manner in which the Schedule is arranged shows that the
legislature was dealing with the category of condiments and


                                17
                                                   7-WP-11034-2015.doc


spices and then mentioning different commodities under that
category. Section 62 is gives the State Government power to
“add to, amend or cancel any of the items of agricultural
produce specified in the Schedule”. Thus, the Act provides a
method by which a commodity can be added to, changed or
removed from the Schedule. This provision has to be kept in
mind while considering whether a commodity which is not
named can nevertheless be brought within an existing class by
interpretation. At the same time, Section 62 does not mean that
every commodity which falls within an existing general
expression must separately be inserted by its individual name. If
the language of an existing entry covers a commodity, separate
mention of its name may not be necessary. Therefore, the
question is whether Hing falls within the existing expression.
The absence of the separate word “Hing” is not by decisive. In
this connection, the statutory recognition of Asafoetida as a
spice becomes important. The Petitioner is not seeking to
include some unrelated commodity in the Schedule. Its case is
that a product which is recognised in law as a spice is covered
by the existing entry relating to spices. This submission cannot
be rejected merely because the exact word “Asafoetida” does not
appear in the list of individually named commodities.

29.   The submission of Respondent No. 1 that the Schedule
“does not include ‘hing’” is therefore correct only to the limited
extent that there is no separate entry using the exact words
“Hing” or “Asafoetida”. But this does not end the inquiry. It is



                               18
                                                  7-WP-11034-2015.doc


still necessary to decide whether Hing falls within “मसाल्याचे
पदार्थ”. The general expression cannot be treated as having no
meaning apart from the individual commodities mentioned
under it. The note placed by the learned AGP deals with pure
Asafoetida and compounded Asafoetida. I do not find that this
distinction is sufficient to exclude Hing from the relevant
category. The Compounded Asafoetida Rules use the words
“Compounded Asafoetida (Bandhani Hing)” and regulate it as a
form of Asafoetida. The Food Safety Regulations recognise
“Asafoetida (Hing or Hingra)” and compounded Asafoetida.
Therefore, merely because the Hing sold in the market may be
compounded, it does not for that reason alone cease to be Hing
or Asafoetida.

30.   The Order dated 15 October 2011 proceeded, according to
the Petitioner, on the basis that Hing was not covered by the
relevant   Notification.   The   State   Government    thereafter
confirmed the same view. However, two separate questions
required consideration. The first was whether “Hing” is a spice.
The second was whether “मसाल्याचे          पदार्थ” used in the
Maharashtra Notification includes Hing. These questions are
connected, but they are not the same. Both required proper
consideration. The State Government was required to consider
the Petitioner's reliance upon the Spices Board Act, particularly
the express inclusion of “Asafoetida” at Serial No. 34 of its
Schedule. It was required to consider the material relating to
compounded Asafoetida. If the authority did not accept this



                                 19
                                                    7-WP-11034-2015.doc


material, it was required to give reasons as to why the same did
not assist in understanding the expression “ मसाल्याचे पदार्थ”. A
conclusion without considering the main material placed by the
Petitioner cannot be treated as proper consideration of its case.

31.   I therefore find substance in the Petitioner's grievance
regarding the manner in which the appellate order deals with its
submissions. The authority was not required to accept the
Petitioner's interpretation merely because Central Acts were
relied upon. But it was required to consider those provisions and
give reasons for accepting or rejecting the Petitioner's case. This
was particularly necessary because the status of Hing as a spice
was one of the main matters raised before the authority.

32.   On the substantive question, the submission of Respondent
No. 1 cannot be accepted in the broad manner in which it is
made. It is true that “Hing” is not separately named in the
Schedule. But that fact alone does not establish that Hing is
outside the expression “मसाल्याचे पदार्थ”. The Central statutory
material expressly recognising Asafoetida as a spice supports the
Petitioner's case on this aspect.

33.   Once it is accepted that “Asafoetida” is a spice, there is no
sufficient reason in the material before the Court to exclude
Hing from the general expression “मसाल्याचे पदार्थ” merely
because its individual name is not separately repeated in the
Schedule. Such a reading would give a narrow meaning to the
class expression used in the Notification. It would require the




                                    20
                                                   7-WP-11034-2015.doc


Court to read into the provision a limitation which is not found
in the words used. I therefore hold that, on the material placed
before the Court, “Hing” or “Asafoetida” falls within the
expression “मसाल्याचे पदार्थ” used in the relevant Notification
dated 8 December 2005. Consequently, it cannot be held that
the Petitioner had no legal basis to treat Hing as covered
agricultural produce for the purpose of regulation and levy of
market fee. This finding is confined to the issue arising in the
present Petition. It does not mean that every food product
containing a spice will become a spice or become liable to
market fee under the Said Act. The product must still be shown
to fall within the relevant statutory entry. In the present case,
however, there is statutory material recognising Asafoetida as a
spice, and the Maharashtra Schedule contains the class
expression “मसाल्याचे पदार्थ”.

34.   For these reasons, the finding of the Director of Marketing
that “Hing”, that is, “Asafoetida”, is not covered by the relevant
Notification cannot be upheld. The subsequent appellate order
dated 4 September 2014, which confirms that finding cannot be
sustained.

35.   The Petition therefore succeeds. The Judgment and Order
dated 4 September 2014 passed by the State Government in
Appeal No. 2 of 2012 and the Order dated 15 October 2011
passed by the Director of Marketing are liable to be set aside. It
is held that “Hing” or “Asafoetida” is covered by the expression
“मसाल्याचे पदार्थ” in the Notification dated 8 December 2005. The


                                 21
                                                   7-WP-11034-2015.doc


Petitioner is consequently entitled to levy and recover market fee
in accordance with Section 31 of the Said Act, subject to the
other applicable provisions of the Said Act, the Rules and the
relevant notifications.

36.   The Writ Petition is allowed in terms of the following
order:

      (i)    The Judgment and Order dated 4 September 2014
      passed by the State Government in Appeal No. 2 of 2012 is
      quashed and set aside;

      (ii)   The Order dated 15 October 2011 passed by
      Respondent No. 2, Director of Marketing, is quashed and
      set aside;

      (iii) It is held that “Hing”, known as “Asafoetida”, is
      covered by the expression “मसाल्याचे पदार्थ” (spices) in the
      Notification dated 8 December 2005 and is accordingly
      covered for the purposes of the Maharashtra Agricultural
      Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963;

      (iv) Consequently, the Petitioner is entitled to levy and
      recover market fee on “Hing”/“Asafoetida” in accordance
      with Section 31 of the Said Act and the applicable Rules
      and notifications;

      (v)    Respondent No. 1 shall be liable to pay the market
      fee in accordance with law, subject to adjustment of any
      amount paid, if applicable;




                                22
                                             7-WP-11034-2015.doc


(vi) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms;

(vii) There shall be no order as to costs.


                                     (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                          23