SMT. SITA DEVI (DEAD) BY LRS.versusSTATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

A                     SMT. SITA DEVI (DEAD) BY LRS.
                                        V.
                         STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

                             NOVEMBER 22, 1994

B            [K. RAMASWAMY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]

         Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960-Section 27 and
    Section 2(/)(a) read with item 3 in Classification 8 of Schedule-
    Agricultural Produce-Definition-Whether cattle is an agricultural
    produce-Held, Yes-Market Committee is empowered to levy and collect
c   market fee when cattle is bought or sold in notified market or notified
    market area.

         The appellants challenged by filing a writ petition before the High
    Court the power of Market Committee to levy market fee on buffaloes,
    bullocks and cows bought or sold in Hat. The High Court held that by
D   operation of Section 2(l)(a) r/w Item 3 in Classification 8 of the
    Schedule under the head 'Animal Husbandry Products' cattle was an
    a'gricultural produce for the purpose of levy of the market fee under
    section 27 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960. This
    appeal by special leave had been filed against the judgment of the High
    Court.
E
         It was contended by the appellants that cattle being not an
    agricultural produce, the levy and collection of the market fee on the
    cattle bought or sold in the notified market was without jurisdiction.

        Dismissing the appeal, this Court
F
         HELD : 1.1. In Classification 8 of the Schedule, to the Bihar
    Agricultural Produce Market Act, Item 3 identifies cattle to be an
    agricultural produce. The definition is an inclusive definition and is of
    wide import. The legislature itself has specified diverse items in the
    schedule which is part of the Act which are amenable to levy and              1
G   collection of the market fee when the specified item is bought or sold in
    the notified market yard or sub-market yard or yard or in the notified
    area. In view of the fact that the legislature itself, on identifying the
    cattle to be an agricultural produce, laid its policy to subject cattle for
    levy of market fee, it is not open to the Court to scan its wisdom. The
H   policy and the wisdom of the legislature cannot be tested by taking aid
                                       682 .
                      SITA DEVI v. STATE OF BIHAR                     683

of the preamble of the Act particularly when the language of section 2 A
(1) (a) is inclusive, unambiguous, specific and explicit. Preamble of the
Act is the key to open the mind of the legislature when the language of
the statute is ambiguous. Absurdity or irrationality of bringing the
enumerated items of agricultural produce within the sweep of the
legislature is n·ot a principle of interpretation of the statute and the
court cannot strike down the Act on that basis. (684 E to H, 685 A)      B
    The inclusive definition in section 2 (1) (a) under the caption
animal husbandry products, cattle has been specified as one of the
items of agricultural produce for the purpose of section 27. The market
committee, therefore, is well within its power to levy and collect market
fee when the cattle was bought or sold in the notified market or notified C
market area. (685 B)

    Ramesh Chandra v. State of U.P., [1980) 3 SCR 104, distinguished.

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1770 of
l~~                                                                         D
   From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.83 of the Patna High Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 1654of1974.

    S.B. Sanyal and B.B. Singh for the Appellant.
                                                                            E
    H.L. Agarwala and Irshad Ahmed for the Respondent.

    The following Order of the Court was delivered:

     This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division
Bench of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1654of1974 dated March F
24, 1983. The only question is whether Market Committee has power to
levy market fee on buffaloes, bullocks and cows bought or sold on every
Thursday in Sammaspur Hat. The Division Bench held that by operation of
section 2 (1) (a) read with Item 3 in Classification 8 of the Schedule under
the head 'Animal Husbandry Products' cattle is an agricultural produce for
the purpose of levy of the market fee under section 27 of the Bihar G
Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (Act XVI of 1960), for short 'the
Act.' We find no force in the contention of Sri Sanyal, learned Senior
counsel for the appellant that the cattle is not an agricultural produce and
the levy and collection of the market fee on the cattle bought or sold in the
notified market is without jurisdiction. Section 15(1) of the Act provides
that no agricultural produce specified in the notification under sub-section H
    684                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS.           [1994] SUPP. S S.C.R

A   (I) of section 4, shall be bought or sold by any person at any place within
    the market area, other than the principal market yard or sub-market yard or
    yards established therein, except such quantity as may in this behalf be
    prescribed for retail sale or personal consumption. Sale or purchase of the
    agricultural produce in such areas shall, notwithstanding anything contained
    in any law, be made by means of open auction or tender system except in
B   case of such class or description of produce as may be exempted by the
    Board. Section 27 of the Act is the charging section for levy of the market
    fee which reads thus:

                     "Market Committee shall levy and collect market fees on
                     the agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area,
C                    at the rate of rupee one per Rs. l 00 worth of agricultural
                     produce."

        The question, therefore, is whether cattle is an agricultural produce.
    Section 2 (I) (a) defines Agricultural Produce thus:

D               "2(1) In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant in the
                     subject or context -

          (a)       "agricultural produce" includes all produce, whether
                    processed or non-processed of agriculture, horticulture,
                    animal husbandry and forest specified in the Schedule."
E
         As stated earlier, in Classification 8 of the Schedule, Item 3 identifies
    cattle to be an agricultural produce. It is true that in the common parlance of
    animal husbandry cattle may not be considered to be an agricultural
    produce. But the definition is an inclusive definition and is wide of import.
    The legislature itself has specified diverse items in the schedule which is
F   part of the Act which are amenable to levy and collection of the market fee
    when the specified item is bought or sold in the notified market yard or sub-
    market yard or yard or in the notified area. In view of the fact that the
    legislature itself, on identifying the cattle to be an agricultural produce laid
    its policy to subject cattle for levy of market fee, it is not open to the Court
    to scan its wisdom. Though in the normal connotation cattle may appear to
G   be not an agricultural produce, it needs to be given effect unless the
    legislature lacks competence which is not the case of the appellant. The
    policy and the wisdom of the legislature cannot be tested by taking aid of
    the preamble of the Act particularly when the language of section 2(l)(a) is
    inclusive, unambiguous, specific and explicit. Preamble of the Act is the
    key to open the mind of the legislature when the language of the statute is
H   ambiguous. Absurdity or irrationality of bringing the enumerated items of
                       SITA DEVI v. STATE OF BIHAR                        685

agricultural produce within the sweep of the legislature is not a principle of A
interpretation of the statute and the court cannot strike down the Act on its
basis.

     The inclusive definition in section 2(1 )(a) under the caption animal
husbandry products, cattle has been specified as one of the items of
agricultural produce for the purpose of section 27. We find that the market B ·
committee, therefore, is well within its power to levy and collect market fee
when the cattle was bought or sold in the notified market or notified market
area. It is a common knowledge that in rural areas· weekly cattle fairs are
conducted in which cattle will be brought for sale and are sold. Its
regulation is the purpose of the Act. The learned counsel, Sri Sanyal, sought
to seek support from the observations made by this Court in Ramesh C
Chandra v. State of U.P., [1980] 3 SCR 104 at p.125. The observations
therein would be construed in the contest in which the argument was
addressed. It is not the case where the cattle has not been identified as one
of the items of the agricultural produce under the caption "animal
husbandry products." As held earlier that once agricultural produce has
been identified by the legislature in the Schedule, so long as they are D
bought or sold within the same notified market area, they are liable for levy
and collection of the market fee. It is not the case that the same produce,
namely, cattle has been subjected to. levy of multiple fee in the same
notified market area. It may be that there may be more than one market in
the same notified market area. If an agricultural produce has been bought or
sold in the notified area and subject to levy and collection of market fee and E
if the same notified market area, certainly the market committee has no
power to levy market fee more than once. But that is not the case here.
Imposing of multiple tax is the accepted legislative policy in Sales Tax
Acts. Paddy and rice, wheat and wheat flour, when separated, identified as
agricultural produce and each is eligible to levy of market fee. Hydes and F
skins when identified as agricultural produce, merely because they are
treated from carcass, they are not exempt from levy of market fee as the
cattle was already subjected to levy of market fee. Ghee and butter are by
products from milk but when milk, ghee and butter are notified as
agricultural produce, each is eligible to levy of market value.

    We, therefore, hold that cattle is an agricultural produce and eligible to   G
levy and collection of market fee. We find no illegality in the judgment of
the High Court warranting interference. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed with costs quantified as Rs. 10,000.

A.G.                                                       Appeal dismissed.