Livestock product regulation: conflicting views on whether ghee can be notified, licensed, and subjected to market fee.

The commentary addresses whether ghee is a livestock product under the Act, whether a later notification under Section 4(4) could validly regulate it without repeating the procedure under Sections 3 and 4, and whether traders must obtain a licence and pay market fee. One view treats ghee as a derivative of milk and therefore within "products of livestock," holding that the Government may notify it for regulation and that later regulatory changes may be made by notification within the statutory framework. The opposite view says ghee falls outside the definition and that mandatory procedural steps were not followed, so the notification cannot be sustained. The text notes conflicting conclusions and no single majority outcome.

---

---

Issues: Whether ghee is a product of livestock under the Act; whether the impugned notification under Section 4(4) of the Act is valid without following the procedure under Section 3 and Section 4; and whether traders in ghee are liable to obtain a licence and pay market fee.

Analysis: The first opinion held that ghee, being a derivative of milk through butter, falls within the expression "products of livestock" and that the Government was competent to notify it for regulation. It further held that the scheme of Sections 3 and 4 shows that the objection procedure is confined to the initial declaration of a notified area, while Section 4(4) permits later regulatory changes by notification without repeating the entire Section 3 process. The impugned notification was therefore treated as a valid regulatory measure, and the market committee's power to require licence and levy fee was upheld.

Conclusion: The first opinion was against the writ petitioner and upheld the notification, the levy, and the licensing requirement.

Analysis: The second opinion took the opposite view, holding that ghee does not fall within the statutory definition of livestock product and that the mandatory procedural steps under Sections 3 and 4 were not followed before issuing the notification. It concluded that the notification could not be sustained and that the writ petitioner was entitled to relief.

Conclusion: The second opinion was in favour of the writ petitioner and invalidated the notification.

Final Conclusion: The judgment contains conflicting conclusions on the validity of the notification and the liability to obtain licence and pay market fee, so no single conclusive majority outcome emerges from the text.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute specifically empowers the Government to notify products for market regulation, later regulatory notifications may be issued within that framework without repeating the initial objection procedure, but the statutory scheme must still be followed as to any mandatory procedural preconditions.

---