Supreme Court Upholds Ghee as Livestock Product Under Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966 — Notification Valid Despite Procedural Challenge. Derivative products of livestock are covered under Section 2(xv) of the Act, and notifications under Section 4 do not require Section 3 procedure.

In Favour of Prosecution
  • 418
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals challenging the validity of a 1994 notification under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, which included ghee as a notified livestock product. The appellants, producers and traders of ghee, argued that ghee is not a 'product of livestock' and that the notification was issued without following the mandatory procedure under Section 3 of the Act. The court, affirming the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, held that ghee is a product of livestock because it is derived from milk, which is a product of cows and buffaloes. The court noted that the definition of 'products of livestock' under Section 2(xv) is broad enough to include derivative items. On the procedural issue, the court found that the 1994 notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act, which does not require the draft notification and hearing process prescribed under Section 3. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the validity of the notification.

Headnote

A) Agricultural Marketing - Definition of Livestock Products - Ghee as Derivative Product - Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, Sections 2(v), 2(xv) - The court held that ghee, being derived from milk which is a product of cows and buffaloes (livestock), is a 'product of livestock' under Section 2(xv) of the Act. The legislative intent includes derivative items obtained from primary livestock products. (Paras 1, 10)

B) Agricultural Marketing - Notification Procedure - Distinction between Section 3 and Section 4 - Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, Sections 3, 4 - The court upheld the Full Bench decision that the 1994 notification was issued under Section 4, not Section 3, and therefore the procedural requirement of draft notification and hearing objections under Section 3 was not applicable. The notification was valid. (Paras 3-8)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether ghee is a 'product of livestock' under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, and whether the Government notification dated 05.07.1994 notifying ghee as a livestock product was validly issued after compliance with the procedure under the Act.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court dismissed all appeals, upholding the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The court held that ghee is a product of livestock under Section 2(xv) of the Act and that the 1994 notification was validly issued under Section 4, not requiring the procedure under Section 3.

Law Points

  • Ghee is a product of livestock
  • Derivative products of livestock are covered
  • Notification under Section 4 does not require Section 3 procedure
  • Liberal interpretation of livestock products
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (SC) (3) 55

Civil Appeal Nos. 6493-6498 of 2014

2024-03-05

Sudhanshu Dhulia

Rupesh Kumar, Pankhuri Shrivastava, Neelam Sharma, Aryaman Sharma, Ajit Bhasme, Mukesh Kumar Pandey, Parth Sarathi, Himani Bhatnagar, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Byrapaneni Suyodhan, Kumar Shashank, Bharat J Joshi, Tatini Basu, D. Bharathi Reddy, Guntur Prabhakar, Sahil Bhalaik, Tushar Giri, Siddharth Anil Khanna, Sewa Singh, Gulshan Jahan

Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd. (formerly M/s Guntur District Milk Production), M/s. Lakshmi Das Premji Ghee Merchants, M/s Durga Dairy Ltd., The Krishna District Milk Producers Co-operative Union Ltd., M/s. Karnataka Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited, and others

Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil appeals challenging the validity of a government notification including ghee as a notified livestock product under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to quash the notification dated 05.07.1994 and to declare that ghee is not a product of livestock under the Act.

Filing Reason

Appellants, being producers and traders of ghee, were required to comply with market regulations under the Act, which they contended were inapplicable as ghee is not a livestock product and the notification was procedurally invalid.

Previous Decisions

The Andhra Pradesh High Court Full Bench in Kommisetty Nammalwar & Co. v. Agricultural Market Committee (2009) upheld the notification by a 2:1 majority, holding ghee as a livestock product and the notification valid under Section 4. The appellants' writ petitions were dismissed based on that decision.

Issues

Whether ghee is a 'product of livestock' under Section 2(xv) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. Whether the Government notification dated 05.07.1994 notifying ghee as a livestock product was issued after due compliance with the procedure under the Act.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued that ghee is not a product of livestock as it is derived from milk, not directly from livestock, and that the notification was issued without following the mandatory procedure under Section 3 of the Act (draft notification and hearing objections). Respondents argued that ghee is a product of livestock as it is derived from milk, which is a product of cows and buffaloes, and that the notification was validly issued under Section 4, which does not require the Section 3 procedure.

Ratio Decidendi

Ghee, being derived from milk which is a product of cows and buffaloes (livestock), falls within the definition of 'products of livestock' under Section 2(xv) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. The legislative intent includes derivative items obtained from primary livestock products. Further, a notification under Section 4 of the Act does not require the procedural steps of draft notification and hearing objections prescribed under Section 3.

Judgment Excerpts

The argument that 'ghee' is not a product of livestock is baseless, and bereft of any logic. Ghee is certainly a product of livestock. The notification under challenge is not under Section 3 but under Section 4 of the Act, and is valid.

Procedural History

The matter originated from writ petitions filed before the Andhra Pradesh High Court challenging the 1994 notification. The High Court referred the matter to a Full Bench, which by a 2:1 majority in Kommisetty Nammalwar & Co. v. Agricultural Market Committee (2009) upheld the notification. Based on that decision, the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard the appeals together.

Acts & Sections

  • Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966: 2(v), 2(xv), 3, 4
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Dismisses State Appeal in District Judge Dismissal Case Due to Violation of Article 235 Control. High Court's Disciplinary Control Over Subordinate Judiciary Excludes Executive Inquiry Under West Bengal Service Rules.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Second Appeal in Advertising Dispute Due to Procedural Irregularity in Lower Appellate Court. Failure to Consider Written Submissions and Denial of Oral Hearing Vitiated the Appellate Judgment.