Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether an agriculturist who sells agricultural produce in the market can be treated as a "trader" under section 2(p) of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, and whether the Government instructions restraining sale through commission agents were valid.
Analysis: The Act separately defines "agriculturist" and "trader". A trader is a person who, in the normal course of business, buys or sells notified agricultural produce. The expression contemplates commercial activity as such, whereas an agriculturist's normal course of business is cultivation, not buying or selling. A farmer's act of taking produce to the market for sale does not by itself convert him into a trader. The legislative scheme also excludes traders and commission agents from the definition of agriculturist, and the interpretation adopted by the High Court would undermine the object of the marketing legislation, which is to protect farmers from middlemen.
Conclusion: An agriculturist is not a "trader" under section 2(p) merely because he sells his produce, and the High Court's contrary view was erroneous.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed with costs.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute separately defines agriculturist and trader, the term "trader" cannot be extended to include an agriculturist whose ordinary activity is cultivation and not commercial buying or selling in the normal course of business.