Broad construction of agricultural produce upheld for inferior gur and rab products, making them liable to market fee.

Section 2(a) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 was construed broadly as an inclusive definition extending beyond scheduled items to processed agricultural products, including gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery. Applying that wide statutory meaning, the Court held that inferior forms of gur and rab do not cease to be agricultural produce merely because they are derived from molasses, are of lower quality, or are not fit for human consumption. Gur-lauta or raskat and rab-galawat and rab-salawat therefore fall within agricultural produce and are liable to market fee under the Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether gur-lauta, raskat, rab-galawat and rab-salawat are agricultural produce within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and therefore exigible to market fee.

Analysis: The definition of agricultural produce in Section 2(a) is inclusive and extends beyond items specified in the Schedule to products in processed form and to gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari and jaggery. The Court held that the legislative intent was to give the term a wide meaning and that inferior forms of gur and rab do not lose their character merely because they are made from molasses or are of lower quality or not fit for human consumption. The Court relied on the statutory breadth of the definition and on prior decisions recognising similarly expanded meanings of the term agricultural produce.

Conclusion: Gur-lauta or raskat and rab-galawat and rab-salawat fall within the definition of agricultural produce under Section 2(a) and are liable to market fee under the Act.

---