Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a partnership firm dealing in dry fruits and dry dates, challenged the validity of notifications dated 20.6.1988 and 18.10.1988 issued under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, and a public notice dated 3.2.1989, which sought to bring dry fruits/dry dates within the regulatory ambit of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The petitioner contended that dry fruits/dry dates are not 'agricultural produce' as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act, which exhaustively lists items like cereals, pulses, fruits, vegetables, etc., but does not include dry fruits or dry dates. The respondents argued that dry fruits are derived from agricultural produce and fall within the definition. The court analyzed the definition and found it to be exhaustive, not inclusive. Since dry fruits/dry dates are not specifically mentioned, they cannot be brought under the Act by notification. The court held that the impugned notifications and notice were ultra vires the Act and void. The writ petition was allowed, and the notifications and notice were quashed. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Interpretation of Statutes - Definition of Agricultural Produce - Ultra Vires - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, Section 2(a) - The court examined whether dry fruits/dry dates are 'agricultural produce' as defined under the Act. Held that the definition is exhaustive and does not include dry fruits/dry dates; the notifications including them are ultra vires the Act. (Paras 1-10)
B) Delegated Legislation - Power to Notify - Ultra Vires - Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, Sections 5 and 6 - The court held that the notifications dated 20.6.1988 and 18.10.1988 and the public notice dated 3.2.1989, which sought to bring dry fruits/dry dates within the regulatory framework, were beyond the rule-making power conferred by the Act and therefore void. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether dry fruits/dry dates fall within the definition of 'agricultural produce' under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963, and whether the notifications dated 20.6.1988, 18.10.1988 and public notice dated 3.2.1989 are ultra vires the Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The notifications dated 20th June, 1988 and 18th October, 1988 and the public notice dated 3rd February, 1989 are quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Doctrine of ultra vires
- Interpretation of statutes
- Definition of agricultural produce
- Market fee levy
- Delegated legislation
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (05) 221
Writ Petition No.139 of 1990
R.M. Lodha, J.P. Devadhar
Mr. Milind Vasudeo with Mr. A.S. Panikkar i/by M/s. Khaitan & Jaykar for the petitioner; Mr. Y.R. Naik for respondent Nos.2 and 3; Mr. M.D. Naik, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1
Messrs Daulatram Tikamdas
The State of Maharashtra, The Director of Agricultural Marketing, Maharashtra State, Pune, The Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bombay
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of notifications and public notice under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963.
Remedy Sought
Declaration that the Act in its application to dry fruits/dry dates and the notifications dated 20.6.1988, 18.10.1988 and public notice dated 3.2.1989 are void, illegal, unconstitutional and without jurisdiction; writ of certiorari to quash them.
Filing Reason
The petitioner, a firm dealing in dry fruits and dry dates, was sought to be regulated by the Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Committee under the Act, which the petitioner contended did not apply to dry fruits/dry dates as they are not 'agricultural produce' under the Act.
Issues
Whether dry fruits/dry dates fall within the definition of 'agricultural produce' under Section 2(a) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963?
Whether the notifications dated 20.6.1988 and 18.10.1988 and public notice dated 3.2.1989 are ultra vires the Act?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the definition of 'agricultural produce' in Section 2(a) is exhaustive and does not include dry fruits/dry dates; hence the notifications and notice are ultra vires.
Respondents argued that dry fruits are derived from agricultural produce and fall within the definition, and the notifications were validly issued.
Ratio Decidendi
The definition of 'agricultural produce' under Section 2(a) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 is exhaustive and does not include dry fruits or dry dates. Therefore, any notification or notice seeking to bring dry fruits/dry dates within the regulatory framework of the Act is ultra vires and void.
Judgment Excerpts
By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-
The definition of 'agricultural produce' under Section 2(a) of the Act is exhaustive and does not include dry fruits/dry dates.
The impugned notifications and public notice are ultra vires the Act and are void.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.139 of 1990 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the notifications dated 20.6.1988 and 18.10.1988 and public notice dated 3.2.1989. The petition was heard and disposed of by oral judgment on 17th June, 2005.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963: Section 2(a), Section 5, Section 6
- Constitution of India: Article 226
