Market licence exemption for producer-sellers is limited to domestic consumption; market fee liability also depends on pleaded commission-agent sale.

A producer selling agricultural produce in the market area is not covered by the proviso to section 9(1) exemption, which was confined to handling produce for domestic consumption. On that reading, a producer processing khandsari sugar for sale in the market area was required to obtain a licence under the market legislation. On market fee, section 17(iii)(b)(1) applies where produce is sold through a commission agent, but that challenge failed because there was no pleading that the sale was routed through such an agent. The statutory exemptions were therefore treated as inapplicable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a producer of agricultural produce selling it in the market area was exempt from taking out a licence under the proviso to section 9(1); (ii) Whether the petitioners were liable to pay market fee under section 17(iii)(b)(1).

Issue (i): Whether a producer of agricultural produce selling it in the market area was exempt from taking out a licence under the proviso to section 9(1).

Analysis: The proviso to section 9(1) was read in the context of the Act's object of regulating sale and purchase of agricultural produce and controlling markets. The exemption was confined to a producer handling produce for domestic consumption, and to a person purchasing or storing agricultural produce for domestic consumption. A producer who processes or sells agricultural produce in the market area for sale does not fall within that exemption. The petitioners, by producing khandsari sugar and selling it in the market area, were treated as trader-producers within the statutory scheme.

Conclusion: The exemption did not apply and the petitioners were liable to obtain a licence; this issue was decided against the petitioners.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners were liable to pay market fee under section 17(iii)(b)(1).

Analysis: Section 17(iii)(b)(1) permits the commission agent to realise and pay market fee where the produce is sold through a commission agent. The contention that only the commission agent was liable could not succeed because there was no pleading that the petitioners sold through a commission agent. In the absence of such foundational averment, the statutory challenge to liability failed.

Conclusion: The petitioners remained liable to pay market fee; this issue was decided against the petitioners.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed in full, as the statutory exemptions relied upon by the petitioners were held inapplicable and their challenge to licence and fee liability was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A producer who sells agricultural produce in the market area for sale is not covered by the domestic-consumption exemption in the market legislation, and a challenge to market-fee liability must rest on the pleaded statutory conditions for shifting liability to the commission agent.

---