Derivative livestock products may fall within market regulation, sustaining notification and market fee liability for ghee.

Ghee was treated as a product of livestock under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 because it is a derivative of milk from livestock and falls within the Act's broad regulatory scheme for animal husbandry products. The 1994 notification was issued under Section 4, so the draft-publication and objection procedure in Section 3 was not required. Once ghee was notified as a regulated product, market fee became leviable on its sale and purchase for the relevant period, and the earlier interim restraint did not extinguish the liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether ghee is a product of livestock within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. (ii) Whether the 1994 notification required compliance with the procedure contemplated under Section 3 of the Act. (iii) Whether market fee could be levied on ghee and collected for the relevant period.

Issue (i): Whether ghee is a product of livestock within the meaning of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966.

Analysis: The statutory definition of livestock covers animals such as cows and buffaloes, and products of livestock are those declared by notification. Ghee is derived from milk, which itself is a product of livestock, and the expression is wide enough to include derivative items where the legislative object is to regulate animal husbandry products. The meaning adopted by the High Court, treating ghee as a product of livestock, was supported by the scheme of the Act and by analogous reasoning on processed animal products.

Conclusion: Ghee was rightly held to be a product of livestock.

Issue (ii): Whether the 1994 notification required compliance with the procedure contemplated under Section 3 of the Act.

Analysis: Section 3 governs the initial declaration of a notified area and requires draft publication and consideration of objections. Section 4 operates differently and concerns constitution of market committees, establishment of markets, and declaration of notified market areas in respect of already notified products. The impugned notification was issued under Section 4, not under Section 3, and therefore the draft-notification procedure was not attracted.

Conclusion: Compliance with the procedure under Section 3 was not required for the 1994 notification.

Issue (iii): Whether market fee could be levied on ghee and collected for the relevant period.

Analysis: Once ghee stood notified as a regulated product, the market committees were empowered under the Act to levy market fee on its sale and purchase. The appellants had availed the market mechanism and facilities, and the levy could not be defeated merely because interim protection had earlier prevented collection. The direction permitting payment in instalments balanced the financial burden while affirming the liability.

Conclusion: The appellants were liable to pay market fee for the relevant period.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the 1994 notification failed, the levy on ghee was upheld, and the appeals were dismissed with consequential directions regarding payment.

Ratio Decidendi: A derivative product of a notified livestock product can itself fall within the expression

---