Inclusive definition of agricultural produce upheld, allowing processed commodities to be validly scheduled under marketing law.

The Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1961 was upheld against constitutional challenge because the subject-matter fell within the concurrent field and no repugnancy with Central law was shown. The inclusion of sugar, khandsari, shakkar and gur in the schedule was also sustained because the Act used an inclusive definition of agricultural produce and authorised the State Government to amend the schedule. The Court accepted that agricultural produce may extend beyond items grown directly from soil and may cover processed or manufactured commodities where the statute so provides. Objections based on excessive delegation, arbitrariness, fundamental rights and absence of quid pro quo were rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1961 was unconstitutional or invalid, and whether inclusion of sugar, khandsari, shakkar and gur in the schedule as agricultural produce was legally permissible.

Analysis: The challenge to legislative competence failed because sugar legislation fell within the concurrent field and there was no repugnancy shown between Central and State enactments. The inclusion of sugar in the schedule was upheld because the Act contained an inclusive definition of agricultural produce and empowered the State Government under section 40 to amend the schedule. The Court held that agricultural produce was not confined to produce grown directly from soil and could include items manufactured or processed in mills or factories when the statute so provided. The attacks based on excessive delegation, arbitrariness, violation of fundamental rights, and absence of quid pro quo were not accepted on the reasoning applied to the validity of marketing legislation.

Conclusion: The statutory scheme and the inclusion of sugar in the schedule were upheld, and the challenge to the Act failed.

Final Conclusion: The petitions were unsuccessful because the Court sustained the validity of the marketing legislation and rejected the objections to the inclusion of sugar and other specified commodities as agricultural produce.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a marketing statute contains an inclusive definition of agricultural produce and authorises schedule expansion, processed or manufactured commodities may validly be included if the legislative field is competent and no repugnancy is established.

---