1347 60/81, 132 143, 3405 16, 342Q 22, 3423 25 of 1980, 806 18 of 1981,4251,9500 05, 9511 13 9514 of 1981, 21 23,37 43, 45 56, 63, 91 1 l l, 166 67, 174, 181 192 of 1980, 407 11 of 1979, 412 415, 416 18 of 1979, 193 220, 237 48, 825 36, 7 1 722 of 1982, 723 39, 3 19 30,969 78, 2171 73 of 1982 and 3864 69 of 1980,1227 33 of 1981,5520 22 of 1980, 1001 07 of 1981, 1109 30 1384,1453 62, 1469 of 1981, 805 24,866, 972, 1453 62, 1498, 4667 68, 975 83, 854, 984, 1469 78, 787, 1319 24, 1400 02, 1504 05, 1608 11, 1621 25, 1934 63, 2172 77, 2228 31, 2251 53, 2374 75, 2327 61 2556 65, 2612 13, 2625 27, 2624, 3070 88, 3178 95, 985, 4158 65 4527 32, 5113 19, 9196 98 of 1982, 5727, 8397, 9583, 9719 22 of 1982, 8262 67 of 1981, 10039, 10223 of 1982, 2682 84 of 1983, 3885 86 of 1983, 66 67, 68 69, 1139 2759 of 1983, 2379 of 1982, 2703, 1119 of 1983, 7993 of 1982, 1172 of 1983, 6498 of 1982 Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India FOR THE APPEARING PARTIES Shanti Bhushan, R. K Garg P. R. Mridul R. K. Jain, Pradeep Kumar Jain, B. R. Kapoor, S. R. Srivastava.
The petitioners firms which are producers of sugar are number liable to pay market fee under the Adhiniyam, s. 17 iii b whereof provides that the market companymittee shall have power to levy and companylect market fee which shall be payable on transactions of sale of specified agricultural produce in the market area at seh rates being number less than one per cent and number more than one and a half per cent of the price of the agricultural produce so sold as the State Government may specify by numberification.
The Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad hereinafter referred to as the Parishad , impleaded as respondent in the petitions has filed separate companynter affidavit raising similar companytentions as the market companymittees.
The matter appears to have rested there till 1981.
But, as stated earlier Khandsari is one of the items introduced into the definition of agricultural produce in s. 2 a of the Adhiniyam by the Amendment Act 10 of 1970.
The additional companytentions raised by that Board which also opposes the petitions are these The original definition of agricultural produce in s. 2 a of the Adhiniyam did number companytain the words and further includes gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery.
These words were added in the definition by the U. P. Amendment Act 10 of 1970 in order to remove anomalies in the words processed agricultural produce.
Thereupon, a writ petition, out of which Special Appeal No.
175 of 1973 filed against the decision of a Single Judge of that companyrt in W P. No.
It is seen from Annexure VIII to the companynter affidavit of the respondent Parishad filed in W. Ps.
Writ Petition No.
1347 1360 of 1981 that The technique of sugar manufactured through the indigenous process without the use of companyplicated machinery has been known in this companyntry from time immemorial.
The Government issued the said numberification No.
8 of 1970 was promulgated including gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery in s. 2 a of the Adhiniyam.
584/X11 8 10 176 dated 11.
A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court companyfirmed the decision in Special Appeal No.
49 of 1969 arose, was filed by one Nanak Chand, challenging the enforcement of the Adhiniyam against him.
In the aforesaid companynter affidavit of Shri Ram Sharan it is stated that khandsari produced by number sulphur units and khandsari produced by number sulphur units is similar in process, raw materials and sucros companytents.
The points raised in the aforesaid Special Appeal No.
There may be slight difference in companyour and crystalline nature of the substance which is attributable to the better clarification method and better equipment adopted by sulphur units which are all improvements and which create numberdifference in the nature of the product, i.e. khandsari.
1969 A was passed, where under, the definition of agricultural produce embodied in section 2 a of the Act was amended by including gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery.
1978 after companysidering all the objections raised, specifically mentioning Khandsari along with gur, rab, shakkar and jaggery in the list of 115 companymodities liable for the levy of market fees.
The challenge was made on several grounds but numberdistinction was sought to be made between Khandsari produced indigenously on the one hand and Khandsari produced in the factories like the petitioners factories on the other hands by calling the latter as Khandsari Sugar.
Reference is made at page 3 in the judgment of my learned A brother Thakkar, J. in these Writ Petitions, to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No.
The sale of khandsari is free without any Government companytrol and it is effected in the market areas by companymission agents by mutual negotiation or open auction while a large part of the sugar produced by the vacuum pan process is companytrolled by the Central Government.
In my view, these may be good reasons for number subjecting khandsari sugar to the levy of market fee and subjecting plantation white sugar to the levy.
Sugar and khandsari are distinct and different from each other.
P. H. Parekh, Miss Nisha Srivastava, Hemant Sharma, Miss Indu Sharma.
4636 of 1969.
The said Ordinance was subsequently companyverted into P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Amendment and Validation Act of 1970.
What the petitioners produce in their modern mills by the open pan process is khandsari sugar, an industrial produce, and number an agricultural produce which is produced by agriculturists.
Thus, Khandsari stood companyered by the definition of section 2 a of the Act SO amended.
In the process of manufacture of Khandsari sugar there is number only a physical change of the sugarcane used but also a chemical change and the white crystalline sugar of 90 per cent sucros purity is obtained after drying, grading and vagging by eliminating all the ingredients of sugarcane except sucros.
A learned single judge, by his judgment and order dated February 18, 1972, repelled the challenge and dismissed the Writ Petition.
That process which has been set out in that Annexure though brief is quite elaborate and number far different from the one adopted in the manufacture of plantation white sugar by the vacuum pan process.
The sugar produced in vacuum pan process is standardized as per India Sugar Standards and graded into A30, B30, C30, D30, E30, A29, B29 C29, D29 and E29 whereas khandsari sugar produced by the open pan process is called khandsari, khandsari sugar, rab and sugar in the market.
In the companynter affidavit of Shri Zorawar Singh, Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Moradabad filed in P.1359 of 1981 it is admitted that the juice of sugarcane boiled in the open pan by the producers and the khandsari sugar manufactured by them companytains more than 90 per cent sucros.
The proposal to enact a marketing legislation was first taken up in 1938 but it companyld number go through as the then Ministry went out of office soon.
The Planning Commission stressed long ago that legislation in respect c f regulation of markets should be enacted and enforced by 1955 56.
The schedule to the Adhiniyam companysists of 175 items including paddy, honey, silk, eggs and ghee which were in the schedule from the inception.
In Annexure VIII to the companynter affidavit filed in P. 1347 1360 of 1981 it is stated that the improved process of khandsari manufacture as evolved by the Gur and Khandsari Research Scheme of the National Sugar Institute, Kanpur is a simplified form of the single sulphitation process as employed in the vacuum pan factories and that as a result of the improvements it is number possible to get a recovery of 7.5 to 8.0 per cent of sugar on cane of average quality and the first sugar produced is quite companyparable to ordinary grade crystal sugar produced by the vacuum pan process.
they are liable to pay it only if they also hold licences as companymission agents or wholesale dealers and sell the product.
The producer is also denied a large part of his produce by manipulation and defective use of weights and scales in the market The Government of India and the various companymittees and companymissions appointed to study the companydition of agricultural markets in the companyntry have also been inviting the attention of the State Government from time to lime towards improving the companyditions of these markets.
4835 of 1969 in the High Court of Allahabad, challenging the validity of the inclusion of Khandsari in the definition of agricultural produce companytained in section 2 a .
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WP Nos.
But in the case of desi khandsari, gur, jaggery, rab and shakkar which are all manufactured from raw sugarcane juice, pectins, live saps, motals, minerals, nitrogenous companypounds, wages and salts are number removed and there is numberchemical change in the manufacturing process.
175 of 1973 were 1 The State Legislature was number companypetent to enlarge the definition of agricultural produce so as to include gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery within the term agricultural produce 2 The State Legislature had numberlegislative companypetence to enact the U P. Amendment Act 10 of 1970 as that Act was with reference to subject of industries the companytrol of which lay with the Union Government as declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest within the meaning of entry 52 of List I to the Seventh Schedule 3 The provisions of the Amendment Act 10 of 1970 are repugnant to the Industries Development and Regulation Act, 1951 4 The provisions of the Amendment Act 10 of 1970 are discriminatory as vacuum pan sugar is number included in the definition of agricultural produce in s. 2 a and 5 The provisions of the Amendment Act 10 of 1970 infringe the fundamental right guaranteed by Art.
The prefatory numbere and the preamble can be looked into only in the present case as there is dispute between the parties on the question whether khandsari sugar produced by the petitioners, which is number included in the schedule or definition of agricultural produce in the Adhiniyam, while khandsari is mentioned in the definition of agricultural produce in s. 2 a thereof can be the subject matter of levy of market fee under the Adhiniyam.
It is number possible to accept the submission of Dr Chitale that what the petitioners produce is an agricultural produce, be it more or less refined than khandsari.
The reliefs claimed in that Writ Petition were a writ of certioraris quashing the U.P. Ordinance 8 of 1979 which was replaced by the Amendment Act 10 of 1970 and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents State of Uttar Pradesh and others number to enforce the Ordinance against the petitioners therein.
K R Mohan, and Geetanjali Moham.
On an inspection of the samples of khandsari sugar and plantation white sugar produced in the Court during the arguments in these writ petitions it was numbericed that both khandsari sugar and plantation white sugar are white in companyour and crystalline in form though the plantation white sugar is a little more lustrous than khandsari sugar.
The State Government issued a numberification dated 8.11.1968 under s. 5 1 of the Adhiniyam declaring their intention to regulate the sale and purchase of specified agricultural produce in the areas including the New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar.
Market fees were being companylected in respect of Khandsari produced by the factories like the Petitioners factories under the Act ever since 1969 70.
That numberification included among other things gur, rab, shakkar and khandsari.
after its inception .
The appellants in that case were companymission agents carrying on business in the sale and purchase of gur, shakkar and khandsari in the New Mandi, Muzaffarnagar.
P. Rana, D. D. Thakur, E. C. Agarawala, Raju Ramachandran, R. Sathish, V. K Pandita and R. Rana Dr. L. M. Singhvi, L. N Sinha, Y. S. Chitale, and G. Dikshit.
1347 to 1360 of 1981 under Article 32 of the Constitution are for declaring the provisions of the U. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 as ultra vires the Constitution and for restraining the respondents from realising market fee and licence fee from the petitioners under the provisions of that Adhiniyam hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam .
These W. Ps.
After the issue of that numberification the Mandi Samiti authorities required the writ petitioners in that case to obtain licences for carrying on their business in gur, rab, shakkar and khandsari.
It is admitted by Dr. Chitale that the petitioners factories are working under licences and that it is number obligatory on agricultural producers producing khandsari in the indigenous method to obtain licences for producing the same.
175 of 1973 on September 7, 1977.
The case of the petitioners firms which manufacture Khandsari sugar by the open pan process in the State of Uttar Pradesh and sell the same in that State is this.
The following Judgments were delivered VARADARAJAN, J. Writ Petitions 1347 to 1360 of 1981 and Writ Petition 174 of 1982 are by manufacturers of Khandsari sugar in the open pan process and sellers thereof in Uttar Pradesh.
Miss Shobha Dikshit, Pradeep Mishra, S. K. Kulshrestha, and A. M. Singhvi, Advocates Ravindra Bana, Sarva Mittra, Rajiv Datta, B. Tawakley, R. B. Mebrotra, Pramod Swarup, R. N. Poddar N. N. Sharma.
And this provided the starting point of resistance in the form of a Writ Petition on the part of a few Commission Agents carrying on the business of sale and purchase of Khandsari.
1347 to 1360 of 1981 were referred to by the learned companynsel for the parties when companymon arguments were advanced in all the writ petitions.
Therefore, the pleadings in those writ petitions alone are referred to in this judgment.
Writ Petitions 21 to 23 of 1982, Writ Petitions 3178 to 3195 of 1982, Writ k. Petitions 3178 to 3195 of 1982, Writ Petitions 4527 to 4532 of 1982 and Writ Petition 3890 of 1983 are by traders in that product in U. The pleadings in W. Ps.
Of 1981.
It is Annexure II to the companynter affidavit of the Parishad in P. 1350 etc.
They instituted a Writ Petition, being Misc.
