Case title – Sangam Milk Producer Company Ltd. vs The Agricultural Market Committee & Ors.
Case no. – Civil Appeal No.6493 of 2014
Decided on – March 05, 2024
Quoram – Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
Facts of the case
In the year 1968, the State of Andhra Pradesh declared ghee” as a livestock product under section 3 (3) of the Act. Later, in the year 1971 declared the ‘notified market areas’ in respect of the respondent committee, i.e. Agricultural Market Committee, Guntur and “ghee” was specified as a notified product under section 4 (4) of the Act. But subsequently in the year 1972 removed it from the list by a notification.
However, in 1994, it again included ghee in the list of regulated products through a general notification for all notified markets in the state.
The notification was challenged before the Andhra Pradesh High Court mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that the ‘ghee’ was not a ‘product of livestock’ and secondly, the notification was issued without adhering to the procedure laid down u/s 3 of the Act.
A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upheld the validity of the 1994 notification and held that the notification was under Section 4, not Section 3 of the Act, and confirmed ghee as a livestock product.
Court’s analysis and judgement
The impugned judgment was challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had to decide the case on three issues. Firstly, whether ghee constituted a product of livestock under the provisions of the Act; Secondly, whether the Government notification of 1994 was published after due adherence with the procedure contemplated under the provisions of the Act; thirdly, whether the market fee should be paid.
The Court held that ‘ghee’ which is a product of milk undisputedly is a product of the livestock. The Court in furtherance, a reliance on the Park Leather Industry (P) LTD. v. State of U.P. and Others case which held that ‘ghee’ would qualify as a product of the livestock though it is derived from another dairy product.
Addressing the second issue, the Court remarked that no prior hearing or publication of the draft notification was required under Section 4 of the Act. The 1994 notification falls under Section 4, not Section 3, so the argument of non-compliance with Section 3 was totally invalid and thereby affirmed the findings of the High Court.
With regard to the third issue, the Court refused to accept the argument that the Market Committees must be restrained from collecting market fees prior to the date of the High Court Judgment while addressing the issue of unjust enrichment and stated that the market fee should be paid.
Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and upheld the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K
