State market fee on rice upheld where Central procurement order did not occupy the full field of rice marketing.

A State agricultural market law remained operative for rice transactions because the Central procurement order regulated only compulsory sale of a specified portion of rice and did not exhaust the field of marketing, sale and purchase. The Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act governed market administration, licensing and market fee, so the two enactments were cognate but not inconsistent. As the control order did not occupy the entire regulatory field, section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act was not attracted. The State levy of market fee on rice was therefore valid and the challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 could operate, and market fee could be levied on rice, in view of the Karnataka Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 and section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Analysis: The Control Order required compulsory sale of only a specified portion of rice to the State and regulated procurement for public distribution, but it did not create a comprehensive and exhaustive code governing the entire field of marketing, sale and purchase of rice. The Marketing Act, by contrast, regulated the establishment and administration of markets, market committees, market areas, licensing and levy of market fee. The two enactments dealt with cognate subjects, but they did not occupy the same field. Since the Control Order did not cover the whole field of rice marketing, there was no inconsistency or repugnancy so as to attract section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Conclusion: The Marketing Act was not repugnant to the Control Order, and levy of market fee on rice was valid. The issue was decided against the assessees and in favour of the Revenue.

Ratio Decidendi: A market fee levy under a State agricultural market law is not displaced unless the Central control order under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 occupies the entire field of regulation; a limited procurement order does not create repugnancy where the State law governs the broader marketing framework.

---