1985 (4) TMI 339 - HC - Indian Laws

Court rules 'dry fish' not 'livestock' under Agricultural Markets Act, emphasizing common parlance.

The court allowed the writ appeals, ruling that 'dry fish' does not qualify as 'livestock' under the A. P. Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, ... - Issues:Interpretation of the definition of 'livestock' in the A. P. Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966 to determine if 'dry fish' falls within its scope and the validity of the government's declaration specifying 'dry fish' as 'livestock.'Analysis:The writ appeals in this case revolve around the interpretation of the definition of 'livestock' in the A. P. Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966, specifically focusing on whether 'dry fish' should be considered livestock. The dispute arose when the Agricultural Market Committees issued a notice to dry fish dealers, requiring them to obtain a license under the Act. The petitioners argued that dry fish does not fall under the purview of the Act's definition of livestock, leading to criminal cases being filed against them. The single judge dismissed the writ petitions, upholding that 'fish' in the Act includes 'dry fish,' prompting the writ appeals.The crux of the matter lies in the definition of 'livestock' under the Act, which includes animals with life and extends to poultry, fish, and other animals declared as livestock by the government. However, a detailed examination of the notification dated 7-11-1978 reveals that 'dry fish' is not categorized under the 'livestock' group, indicating a clear distinction. The court emphasized that statutory definitions should be interpreted in common parlance and not in a technical or botanical sense. Referring to legal precedents, the court highlighted that the term 'livestock' encompasses animals kept for profit, excluding 'dry fish' from its ambit as evident from the notification itself.Furthermore, the court rejected the analogy drawn by the government pleader to a Supreme Court case regarding the identity of cotton, emphasizing that 'fish' and 'dry fish' are distinct products. Unlike cotton, which retains its identity through processes, dry fish undergoes a transformation from fish with or without life. This distinction reinforces the conclusion that 'dry fish' does not align with the definition of 'livestock' under the Act. Consequently, the court allowed the writ appeals, quashing the inclusion of 'dry fish' in the notification. The court also denied applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, stating that no substantial legal question necessitating Supreme Court intervention arises from the case.In conclusion, the judgment clarifies that 'dry fish' does not fall under the definition of 'livestock' in the A. P. Agricultural Produce and Livestock Markets Act, 1966. The decision underscores the importance of interpreting statutory provisions in their common understanding and upholds the distinction between 'fish' and 'dry fish' as separate entities within the legal framework.