KAHC020022992017_1

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: DHARWAD
  • 4
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

These intra-court writ appeals arose from a common order dated 25.04.2017, by which a single judge of the Karnataka High Court had dismissed the appellants' writ petitions. The appellants are ginning and pressing factories engaged in direct purchase of raw cotton—a notified agricultural produce—from agriculturists under licences granted under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966. In 2014, the Act was amended by Karnataka Act No. 5 of 2014, effective from 04.01.2014, inserting a fourth proviso to Section 65(2) that reduced the market fee to 33% for 'any private markets established under Section 72-A'. Despite this amendment, the authorities demanded market fee at 70% from the appellants, asserting that the reduced rate applied only to private market yards holding licences under Rule 87-C of the 1968 Rules, and not to direct purchasers like the appellants. The appellants contended that their direct purchase centres fell within the meaning of 'private markets' under Section 72-A read with Rule 87-C, and therefore they were liable to pay only 33% market fee. The single judge rejected this contention and dismissed the writ petitions. In these appeals, the appellants argued that the single judge had misconstrued the statutory provisions and that the 33% rate was applicable to them. The appeals were heard by a division bench comprising Justices S.R. Krishna Kumar and G. Basavaraja. The judgment excerpt provided does not contain the court's reasoning and final decision; the bench's analysis and conclusion are not included in the text.

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appellants, who hold licences for direct purchase of notified agricultural produce from agriculturists, are entitled to pay market fee at 33% as per the 4th proviso to Section 65(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966, or at 70% as demanded by the APMC.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Law Points

  • interpretation of 'private markets' under Section 72-A and 4th proviso to Section 65(2) of Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act
  • 1966
  • market fee rate 33% or 70%
  • licence for direct purchase of notified agricultural produce
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2024 LawText (KAR) (04) 8

WA No. 100398 of 2017 c/w WA No. 100400 of 2017

2024-04-02

S.R. Krishna Kumar, G. Basavaraja

NC: 2024:KHC-D:6956-DB

Jayakumar S. Patil, Chetan Munnoli, R.V. Prasad, K. Hemakumar, H.R. Kambiyavar, Sridhar Murthy A., Gangadhar J.M., Praveen Uppar, K. Anandkumar, B. Anand Shetty

Vijay Industries T.M.C. Unit (WA No. 100398/2017) and M/s Thungabhadra Ginning and Pressing Factory (WA No. 100400/2017)

State of Karnataka, Secretary Department of Agriculture Marketing, Director and Additional Director Department of Agriculture Marketing, Agricultural Produce Market Committee Bailhongal, Agricultural Produce Market Committee Bellary

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ appeals against dismissal of writ petitions challenging demands for market fee at 70% instead of 33%.

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to set aside the single judge's order and allow their writ petitions, thereby quashing the demands for 70% market fee and declaring entitlement to 33%.

Filing Reason

The appellants were aggrieved by the single judge's dismissal of their writ petitions which challenged the demands and communication that they must pay 70% market fee.

Previous Decisions

Single judge dismissed the writ petitions on 25.04.2017.

Issues

Whether the appellants, holding licences for direct purchase of notified agricultural produce from agriculturists, fall within the meaning of 'private markets' under Section 72-A read with Rule 87-C and are thus entitled to pay market fee at 33% under the 4th proviso to Section 65(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants contended that their direct purchase centres were 'private markets' under Section 72-A and Rule 87-C, and therefore only 33% market fee was payable under the amended 4th proviso to Section 65(2).

Judgment Excerpts

Both the appellants are engaged in the activity of Ginning and Pressing of cotton and for the purpose of their business, they directly purchased raw cotton from the agriculturists, which is a notified agricultural produce under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966. By Karnataka Act No.5 of 2014, various provisions of the said Act of 1966 were amended w.e.f 04.01.2014. The said amendments included insertion of a 4th proviso to Section 65 of the said Act of 1966, which provided that in case of any private markets established under Section 72-A of the said Act of 1966, the petitioners / appellants would be liable to pay a market fee at 33% as against 70% being paid prior to the amendment.

Procedural History

Appellants were granted licences for direct purchase of notified agricultural produce from agriculturists. After the 2014 amendment to Section 65(2) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966, authorities demanded market fee at 70% instead of 33%. Appellants challenged the demands via writ petitions. The single judge dismissed the writ petitions on 25.04.2017. Appellants filed writ appeals under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961. The appeals were heard and reserved on 22.08.2023, and judgment was pronounced on 02.04.2024.

Acts & Sections

  • Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Act, 1966: Section 65, Section 72-A
  • Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation and Development) Rules, 1968: Rule 87-C
  • Karnataka High Court Act, 1961: Section 4
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Suspension of Cricketer in BCCI Match-Fixing Case for Violation of Natural Justice. Suspension Order Passed Without Show-Cause Notice or Opportunity of Hearing Set Aside as Arbitrary and Unreasonable.
Related Judgement
High Court KAHC020022992017_1