Gur-lauta, raskat, rab-galawat, rab-salawat liable to market fee under U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964

SC held that gur-lauta, raskat, rab-galawat, and rab-salawat are liable to market fee under U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964. Court applied rule of interpretation that "means and includes" gives wider meaning to agricultural produce definition. Inferior quality products made from sugarcane/molasses, whether for human or animal consumption, fall within definition of gur and rab. HC judgment set aside, writ petitions dismissed. Appeals allowed.

---

---

Issues: Whether gur-lauta, raskat, rab-galawat, and rab-salawat are liable to the levy of market fee under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam of 1964.

Summary:
The controversy in the appeals revolved around the classification of gur-lauta, raskat, rab-galawat, and rab-salawat as agricultural produce under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam of 1964. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court had held that these items were not agricultural produce. The definition of 'agricultural produce' under Section 2(a) of the Act includes items like gur, rab, shakkar, khandsari, and jaggery. The appellants argued that these items, being derived from sugarcane, should be considered agricultural produce. The respondents contended that these items were not agricultural produce as they were derived from molasses, which they argued was not an agricultural product.

The Supreme Court analyzed the definition of 'agricultural produce' under the Act, emphasizing that the inclusion of items like gur and rab indicated a broad interpretation beyond items specified in the Schedule. The Court noted that the Act aimed to benefit both agriculturists and traders by collecting market fees on agricultural produce. It rejected the argument that inferior forms of gur and rab should not be considered agricultural produce, stating that even if not fit for human consumption, they still fell within the definition under the Act.

Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted that items produced in mills or factories could still be deemed agricultural produce under the Act. It cited cases where similar items were considered agricultural produce, reinforcing its interpretation. Ultimately, the Court held that gur-lauta, raskat, rab-galawat, and rab-salawat fell within the definition of agricultural produce under the Act and were subject to market fees. The appeals were allowed, the High Court judgments were set aside, and the writ petitions by the respondents were dismissed.

---