Allowed

Smt.Sai Rama Devi, D/o.Suresh Babu v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Telangana HC4 Sept 2024WP/11119/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging demand notice for market fee on seeds. Court sets aside notice for certified seeds, exempts vegetable seeds, and allows fee only on non-seed produce from foundation seed.

What did the court decide?

Seeds developed and manufactured by petitioner as certified/labelled seeds not subject to market fee; notice set aside; vegetable seeds exempt from levy.

Smt.Sai Rama Devi, D/o.Suresh Babu Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2024)

¶1

[³³⁰² ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR^{THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. SARATH

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 11119 OF 2011

¶7

Between:

¶8

Ms.Sai Rama Devi, D/o.Suresh Babu, Manager^{(Legal) Bayer Bio Sciences Pvt. Ltd.,} N.854, lndustrial Area, lvledchal, Ranga Reddy^District.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

1 . Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary,,^{Agriculture and Coop} (Mktg.ll) Department, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Commissioner and Director of Marketing, Govt.^{of AndhraPradeshat} Hyderabad.

¶13

The Secretary, Agricultural Marketing Committee Medchal,^{Ranga Reddy} District.

¶14

....,RESPONDENTS

¶15

Petition Under A(icle 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the^{High Court maybe} pleased to issue any Writ, order or directions more in the nature of Writ of Certiorari and call for records and^{quashthe impugned noticevide letterNo.} 4412010-111266 dated^'11.03.2O11 issued by the 3rd^{Respondentherein declaring} the same as illegal, arbitrary and without^jurisdiction and^{in violation of the orders} of this Hon'ble Court in WP No. 13527 o'f 2004 and batch and consequently prohibit the Respondents herein from demanding and collecting the market fee on the sale and purchase of certified as well as truthfully^{labeled seed for sowing} purpose from the petitioner company.

¶16

|.A.NO:1 OF 201 1^{(WPMP.NO:1363} 70^{F 20111}

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition, the High Courtmay be pleased to} suspend the operation of the^{notice vide letter No- 441201O-11/266 dated} 11.03.2011 issued by the 3rd^{Respondentherein pending disposal of this writ} petition.

¶18

l.A.NO:2 OF 2011^(WPMP. NO : 16603^{OF 2011)}

¶19

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High Court maybe pleasedto} amend the cause title in so far as^{the petitioner firm is concerned Smt. Sai Rama} Devi, [Vlanager Legal, Bayer Bio Sciences^{Pvt. Ltd.,to BayerBio SciencesPvt.} Ltd., Rep. by Smt. Sai Rama Devi, Manager^(Legal).

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI S.SRIDHAR

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents : GP^{FORAGRICULTURE}

¶22

The Court made the following ORDER

¶23

¶24

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SARATH WRIT PETITION No.11119 of 2O11

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 ol

¶27

Constitution of India, seeking the following reliet

¶28

'... to issue ang Wit, order of directions more in the nature of Wit of Certiorari and call for the records and^quash the impugned notice uide Lr.No.44/ 201O-1 l/266 dated 11.03.201 1 issued bg the respondent No.3 declaing the sclme as illegal, arbitrary and uithout^jurisdiction and in uiolation of the orders of this in W.P.No.13527 of 2004 and batch and conse-quently prohibit the respondents from demanding and collectittg the market fee on the sale ond purchase of certifi.ed as utell as truthfully labeled seed for souing purpose from the petitioner compang .. ..."

¶29

Heard the learned counsel lor the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Agriculture appearing for the respondents.

¶30

It is submitted by learned counse I for the petitioner that the subject rnatter of this Writ Petition

¶31

¶32

SK, J WP11119 of 2011

¶33

is squarely covered by the common order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 13527 of 2OO4 and batch, dated O8.O2.2OO-> and requested to pass similar orders in this Writ Petition also. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Agriculture did not dispute the submissiorr rlade by the learned Counsel for the petitioner ztnd rcquested to pass similar orders

¶34

In view of the above, for the reasons alike in the W.P.No.13:;27 ol 2OO4 and batch, dated 08.02.2005, this Writ Petition is also disposed of in similar lines, u.ith the following directions:.

¶35

a Secds developed and manufactured by the petitioner and sold as certified or labelled seeds, are not subject to levy ol market lee, ald the demand notices issued therefor are set aside.

¶36

b Vegetable seeds are not covered by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, and are not subject to ler.y ol market [ee.

¶37

5K, J WP11119 of 2011

¶38

¶39

¶40

C. Such part of the produce, grown out of foundation seed, by a farmer, chosen by the seed manufacturers, as is not sold and used as seed, shal1 be liable to be levied the market fee. For this purpose, the Executive Heads of the Market Committees, sha-ll^be entitled to require Seed Manufacturers, operating within the notified area, to furnish take the relevant particulars and consequential steps.

¶41

The Registry is directed to annexe a copy of^the order W.P.No. 13527 of 2OO4 and batch, dated

¶42

'08.02.2005 along with this petition

¶43

5"^ As a seqrrel thereto, miscellaneous applications,^if

¶44

any, pending in the writ petition stands closed.^No

¶45

order as to costs.

¶46

SD/. P. PADMANABHA^REDDY ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR

¶47

¶48

//TRUE COPY// ,! ECTION^OFFICER

¶49

'o r. "^{,n" Secretary, Govt.of Andhra Pradesh' Agriculture and Coop (Mktg'll)} Department,^{Secretariat' Hyderabad'}

¶50

1. The commir'on"|.^{.ni'Diilii"Ioirrrrr*.ting.Govt of Andhra Pradesh at} Hvderabad.

¶51

Hvderabad.

¶52

3 f#Hllirry,^{AgriculturalMarketingCommittee Medchal' RangaReddy} District.

¶53

4.TwoCCstoGPFoRAGRICULTURE,HighCourtfortheStateofTelangana at Hvderabad. [oUT]

¶54

5 o;;'cc i; siiS.srirosnn^{Advocate [oPUC]} t, Ifl,S":'-3,."1;:topv^{or court orderdt:08/02l2005in w'PNo ' 13527 ot2oo4)}

¶55

SA GJP

NJL

HIGH COURT

DATED:0410912024

ORDER

WP.No.11119 of 2011

.t- 1 rte 5 ,..r, c
)+
,l 21 ilAl] 2025
t t)cspAICH eg

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

@
W

W.P.Nos.13527 ot 2OO4 & batch

¶67

¶68

COMMONJUDG[IIIENT:

¶69

ln this batch of writ^petitions, a common^question, namely,^{whether market fee, under} the Andhra Pradesh^{(Agricultural} Produce and Livestock)^{IvlarketsAct, 1966 (for} short'the Markets Act'), is leviable on^the seeds, manufactured^{by the petitioners,} arises lor consideration.

¶70

The petitioners are manufaclurers and^producers of^seeds, ol^{ditferent varieties,} within the State of Andhra Pradesh,^Petilioners state^{that they undertake extensive} research in bringing about hybrid varieties, and once^{a varietyis successlully} evolved, the foundation seed^{is given} to^{selected farmers formultiplication, and the} seeds so^produced are^procured by them.^{Thereafter,seeds arefurther processed,} packaged and sold as certlfied seeds. All the petitioners^got themselves^registered under the relevant^provisions of the Seeds Act,^{1966,andsomeof themhave} obtained registration under the Seeds Control^{Order 1983 (for short 'the Conkol} Order'), issued under the Essential Commodities^Act.

¶71

Petitioners contend that lhough the seeds^{produced and dealt with by them are} meant to be supplied to the farmers for^{growingcrops, therespondents are treating} the seeds as a mere agricultural^produce and^{levyingmarketfee thereon. lt is} contended that the matters, in relation to seeds,^{are governedby theprovisionsof} the Seeds Act and lhe Control Order,^{andthe provisions of theMarkets Act have no} application, in relation thereto. A^{further contentionis advanced to thc e,le'ctthat} certified or branded seeds cannot be trealed^{as an agriculturalproduce,withinthe} meaning of Section 2('1) of the Markets Act, and^{that thereis no transactionol sale} and^purchase of agricultural^{produce, in} the^{matter of growing and manlfacturingof} the seeds. One ol the wril^pelitioners deals^{exclusively, with vegetable seeds, andit} is contended that their^product is not notified^{either directly} or^{indirectly under the} Markets Act.

¶72

Common counter affidavits are filed by the^{respondents.lt is their case that oncea} particular product is an agricultural^produce, it^{is liable} to be^{levied marketfee,} irrespective of the use to which it is^{put- lt is contended thatthe commodities dealt} with by the^petitioners fall within the definition^{of agricullural produce, underone}

¶73

item or the other of the relcvant Schedule, and as such^{theprovisions of the Markets} Act are applicable to the transactions, in relation to such^{produce. The respondents} endeavour to distinguish t,te^judgments relied upon by the^{petitioners,and insist that} the market fee is leviable.

¶74

Arguments on behalf of the^petitioners were addressed^by Sri^{D. Prakash Reddy,} learned Senior Counsel. Sri C.R. Sridharan, K.Rajanna, Sri^{P.Pankaj ReddyanCSri} Vengal Reddy, Advocates

¶75

Learned Senior Counsel made copious relerence to the^{various provisionsof the} Seeds Act; the Control Order. and the Markets Act. He submits thal the^manufaclure and processing ol seeds is a complex^{process, involving} the^{production of breeder} seeds, foundation seeds, and certified seeds. According to him, the^{entire aclivily of} production and supply of seeds is governed by the provisions of the Seeds Act and the Control Order, which are Central Legislations, and the^{MarketsAct,beinga State} Legislation. cannot govenr that very activity. He contends that seeds^{can be sold} either on cerlilication under section 7 of the Seeds Act, or by^{labelingit, andin lhat} view ol the matter, it is impermissible to keat seeds as an agricultural^produce.He urges that the respondents cannot treat the seeds as^{agricultural produce, even at} an inlermediary stage. before certification.

¶76

Another contention advanced on behalf of the^petitioners is that,^Rule 54^{oi the} Market Rules mandates that the sale of an agricultural^{produce is to be by way of} auction under the^guidance and supervision of the^{concerned authoritiesof the} market committee, and since no such activity takes^place, in^{relation to seeds. the} respondents cannot levy market fee based on the turnover of the^{petitioners. A} subsidiary conlention was raised to the eflect that, unless the seeds, as^{such are} notified in the Schedule. the respondents cannot levy^marketfee thereon.^simply because the corresponding species. is already notifted.^{Petitionersplace reliance} upon the recent^judgment of the Supreme Cowlin Krishi^{Ulpadan MandiSamitiv.} P.P.B. Ltdt and the^judgment in State of Baiasthan v. Rajasthan Agriculture lnput Dealers' Assn2.

¶77

Learned Government Pleader for Agriculture and learned Standing Counsel lor the respective Nilarket Commitlees submit that even if a product is used as seed, basically it is an agricultural produce and the transaction o[ sale and purchase takes place between the petitioners, on the one hand, and the producers of the seed, on

¶78

the other hand, and thereby^{the petitioners} are liable to^{be treated as traders. They} contend that, in most ot the cases,^{the petitioners} have^{obtainedthelicencesunder} Section l2 of the^{MarketsAct. lt is also urged that the use, to whichthe agricultural} produce is put io, become insignificant, in the context^{of levy of market fee.They} urge that once the^{product dealtwith by the petitionersis notified in the Schedule} under the Markets Act,^{the marketlee is leviable.According to thelearned counsel,} the Seeds Act and the Control^{Order deal with a totally ditferent aspect, from the one} under the Markets Act,^{and thereis no overlapping among them.Placing reliance} upon a^judgmenl ol the^{SupremeCourtin Seedsman Association v- Principal} Secrctary to GovernmenF,lhe^{judgment in ITC ZenecaLimited, sec'badv' Govt'} ol A.P.a, and cenain otherjudgments,^{theyplead thatthe action of the respondents} is legal and valid. An attempt^{is madeto distinguish the} iudgment^{of the Supreme} Courlin Krishi lltpadan^{Mandi Samitiv- P.P'8. Ltd (1 supra)}

¶79

As observed earlier,^{thepetitioners aremanulacturers and producersof seeds of} ditferent varieties. The^{respondents sought to levymarketlee on theseeds on the} premise that it is baslcally an agricultural^{produce,and lhe fact that it is beingused} aS Seed, iS of no consequence'^{Whilethe petitioners plead that their activitiesare} controlled exclusively^{by the Seeds Act and the Control Order,the respondents} insist that the operation^{of the provisions of the Markets Act, is notat all eflected by} lhe said Legislations.

¶80

The Seeds Act^{was enacted in the year1966, withan object of regulatjngthe} qualityolCertainseedsforsaleandforthemattersconnectedtherewith.Central Seed Committee is constituted^{under Section3; and Central and State Seed} Laboratories are^{provided for undersection 4. ThecentralGovernment is conferred} with the^power to notify the^{kind of varieliesof seeds,to be regulated under the Act'} The sale of seeds of^{notilied kinds and varieties is prohibited under section 7,} except where the seed conforms^{lo the standardstipulated under Section 6, andthe} conlainer of such seed^{bears in the prescribedmark or label. The procedurefor} certification is also stipulated.^{The Rules framed under the Act, furnish the lurther} detaiis. The emphasis is upon^{ensuringtheminimum percentageof germination and} genetic purity of the seeds- Rule 14^{defineslhe classes ol seeds, namely'} loundation seed, registered^{and certifiedseed. lt is not necessary to referto theother} details. The central Government^{issuedthe seeds (control)order 1983, in exercise} of the^{powerunder Seclion 3 ol the Essential CommoditiesAct' 1955'While the}

¶81

object under the Seeds Act is to regulate the manulacture and to provade for certification of the seeds, the purpose ol the Seeds (Control) Order, is to ensure proper distribution thereof, by granting licences to dealers.

¶82

So far as the Markets Act is concerned, its object is to consolidate and amend the law relating to the regulation of "purchase and sale,,of agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock, and establishment of markets. Agricultural produce is defined under sub-section (2)(i) of this Act. Section 3 provides lor declaration of notified market areas as well as the notification of items of agricullural produce, to be brought under the purview of the Act. Section Z provides for grant of licences lor undertaking business in the notilied areas. Section^.12 is the charging provrsron

¶83

ln a typical system ot lndian agriculture, part of the agricultural produce, used to be kept aside, for the purpose of being used as seed, for the next crop, by the farmer. The manufacture ol hybrid and other advanced varieties is relatively a recent phenomenon. So is the concept of levy ol market lee on the agricultural produce. Seed, of whalever variety. is basically an agricultural produce. The reason is that, it is produced through agnculture. may be with an amount of sophtslication. The conlroversy turned, much around the fact that the seeds partake the character of agricultural produce. However. the use to which it is put, is different trom the one to which an agricultural produce is put to, in the normal parlance. lt is this vexed question, that gave rise to several disputes, in the matter ol levy of market fee on the seeds.

¶84

Though it is not necessary to go into the details of the manufacturing process of seeds, the basic ingredienls thereof, need to be noted, with an object ol ascertaining whelher grain used for seed is nothing but an agricultural produce, or it is diflerent in any context. An aspect, which needs to be borne in mind, is that lhe dispute is exclusively in relation to the cenrfied or labelled seeds, and not about an agricullural produce, which an improvised farmer uses as seed.

¶85

From the provisions of the Seeds Act and Bules as well as the procedure adopted by the various petitioners, it is evident that in the process of manulacturing seeds, the initial stage begins with the procurement of^,.breeder seed,,. either from

¶86

their own laboratories, or from olher specialized agencies, such as universities. After the superior qualities of the same, from the points of view, such as adjustment to climate, resistance to diseases, improved productivity, are firmly established, foundation seeds are grown from breed seeds, under controlled conditions and strict supervision. Thereafter, the foundation seed is given to selected farmers for multiplication of the same. Here again, strict supervision is undertaken to ensure genetic purity etc. The seeds so produced by the farmer is taken back by the manu{acturer. lt is graded and sent for certification by the competent certifying agency, as to the genetic purity and percentage of germination. On certification, by the competent authority, the seed becomes certified seed. In certain cases, the manufacturer may himselt vouch for such factors. The package or container of such seed is required to bear the necessary pafiiculars, provided for, in the Seeds Rules.

¶87

lt is true that the expression of^{"agricultural} produce" is too wide and it takes in its fold, anything which is produced through agriculture. On thal premise, it includes the seeds also. This question fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in Srare of Rajasthan v- Bajasthan Agriculture lnput Dealers' Assn. e supra), in the context of Ievy of market fee on seeds. After referring to the provisions of the Seeds Act, on the one hand, and the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Nlarkets Act, 1961 , which is almost in parimateria with the corresponding Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) I,4arkets Act, 1966, the Supreme Coud held as under:

¶88

"Para-7: lt is undoubtedly true that looodgrains per se could be used as seeds for being sown and achieving germination, but in lhat form they retain lhe dual utility of being loodgraans as well as seeds. By process of coating and applying insecticides, other chemicals and poisonous substances to lhe foodgrain meant to be utilized as seeds, one of ils basic character, i.e., its consumption as lood by human beings or animals or tor extraclion for the like purpose, gets irretrievably lost and such processed seeds become a commodity d,stincl ,rom foodgrains as commonly understood. Thal dlstinction was borne in mind by the High Court in allowing the writ petition ol the respondents, and in our view rightly."

¶89

ln ITC Zeneca Limited, Sec'bad v. Govt, ol A,P. G supta), a Division Bench of this Court considered the leviability of market fee on seeds. The Division Bench look the view that as long as a pa,licular commodity is an agricultural produce, the use to which it is put, becomes irrelevant, from the point of view of levy of market fee. The judgment of the Supreme Coud in Sfafe of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Agriculture lnput Dealers' Assn. e suva), was sought to be distinguished on the strength of the dif{erence as to entries in the corresponding Acts of^Rajasthan and Andhra Pradesh,

¶90

in relation to levy of market fee, and it was held as under

¶91

"(1) That all such rtems like paddy, wheat, maize. bajra, colton seed. sunflower, safflower,^jowar etc., covered by this Batch ol wril petitions, which are specified in the Schedulell appended lo the A.P. (Agricuitural^produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 whether sold in original form i.e, edrble or converted lorm i.e., chemically processed into non-ed,ble lorm (seeds lor germinalion purposes), within the precincts ol notified market areaimarket ya.d, are e{igible ta the levy of market fee.

¶92

(2) That such seeds like Tomato and castor seeds, which are derivatives of the main produce, but are sold separately and which are not specified in the Schedule-ll annexed to A.P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, cannot be made liable to the levy and colleclion ol market fee.

¶93

(3) That such items specified in Schedute It referred to above which suffe.ed the payment of market fce in an Agricullural Maket Committee, shall not again be subjected to paymenl of market lee in any other Agricultural l\rarket Commilee within the Stale ol Andhra Pradesh, il the proof ol such payment is furnished to the authorily concerned.

¶94

(4) That the petitioners shall now submit lhe accounts to the respeclive committees within a period of one month lrom to-day, whereupon the respective Agricultural lvlad<et Committees shall make-assessment of the market fee payable and within one month of the service ot the said assessment orders, the petitioners shall pay off lhe said amounts: and

¶95

(5) That henceforth, the petitioners shall be liable to comply the provisions of A.p. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) tvlad<els Aci, 1966 in their deatings !n items covered by para 16(1)above, wilhin the market areas/market yards and failure to do so will render them liab e 1or the consequences under lhe said Acl_"

¶96

So far as the seeds of vegetables are concerned, the Division Bench took the view that they cannot be ntade liable for levy of collection ol market lee.

¶97

Recently, the Supren]e Court considered this very matter in Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. P.P.B. Ltd (1 supra).Fheir Lordships referred to the provisions of the Seeds Act and the Ordinances, on the one hand, and the corresponding lvlarkets Act of the State of U.P., on the other. l,4uch discussion was devoted to the interpretation of the^judgment in Stale of Rajasthan v. Raiasthan Agriculture tnput Dealers' Assn 1e supral. Their Lordships followed the said judgment, in all its respects, and went a step further, and held that, unless the seed, as an independent item from the agricultural produce, is notified under the rerevant schedure, market fee cannot be levied. The subject matter of that case was wheat. lt was herd that since wheat seed

¶98

It I

¶99

I l i l

¶100

was separately notified, it cannot be subjected to levy of market fee. For the present purpose, it would be sutficient, il the ratio tn State of Rajasthan v. Raiasthan Agriculture lnput Dealers'Assn e supraT, is applied to the^facts of the^present case. The conclusions are evident from the following paragraphs:

¶101

"Para 36: There is no nexus whether the seed has been chemically treated or not and the levy of market fees. Since the seed is.a separate commodity from^grain, the same is not covered under Schedule t of the Adhiniyam and as such no market^{fee is} leviable over the sale and/or purchase of the same-

¶102

PaIalSZ:^{Weare, therelore,of theview that lheseedsare not speciliedagricultural} produce under the provasions of the Act and, therefore, the business of purchase and sale ol seeds under the supervision of Seed Certlfication Agency established under the Act is not a business ol sale afd^purchase of specified agricultural^produce and as such lhe firsl respondent is not required to pay the ma*et fee or to take out a licence.

¶103

Eala3gr^{We are also of the view that the respondents have grossly erred io ignoring} the law settled by this Court in the case oi State of Rajaslhan vs. Raiasthan Agicultural lnput Dealers Association fsuprA under Article 141 of the Conslitution in demanding market fee on seeds. Since the processing ol wheat resulting in loss of its basic characterislics of being cerea!, it cannot be subiected to levy as agricultural produce since the purchase by the respondent is for the purpose of growing seeds, no levy is permissible and, therefore, market fee cannot be imposed on seeds which are unfit for human consumplion."

¶104

The^judgment of this Courl in ITC Zeneca Limited, Sec'bad v. Govt. of A.P.⁽⁴ sup@, was the subject matter of an appeal before the Supreme Court in Seedsman Association v. Principal Secretary to Government O supra). ln that, the^judgments in Slate of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Agriculture lnput Dealers' Assn e supi4 and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. P.P.B.Ltd⁽¹ soprd, werc relerred extensively. Relief was denied to the appellants therein on the^ground that the affidavit filedⁱⁿ support of the wril^petition was conspicuously silent as to the nature and^{variety of} the seeds produced by the appellants therein. ln the^present batch of cases, the petitioners have furnished, in detail, the various steps involved in the manufacture of seeds in their plants, laboratories, etc. The^judgment of the Supreme^{Courtin Stale} of Raiasthan v- Raiasthan Agriculture lnput Dealers' Assn e supta) and Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti v. P.P.B, Ltd (1 supra), squarely apply to the facts of these cases. Therefore, the demand notices issued to lhe^petitioners, cannot be sustained.

¶105

One aspect which, however, needs to be noted is that it is quite possible that, if the entire product of a foundation seed grown by a farmer, on a contract with a seed company, is used as seed, no problem as such arises. However, where any part of it was not used as seed. it deserves to be treated as agricultural produce and thereby, would be liable for levy of market fee. For this purpose, the concerned Market Committee can require the manufacturer of the seed to lurnish the relevant particulars, tolsatisfy itself as to whether any agricultural produce is left unused as seed.

¶106

20 For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitions are ordered, with the fo owing directions

¶107

¶108

Seeds developed and manufactured by the petitioners and sold as certified or labelled seeds, are not subject to levy of market fee, and the demand notices issued therefor are set aside.

¶109

¶110

Vegetable seeds are not covered by the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural produce and Livestock) Ivlarkets Act, 1966, and are not subject to levy of market lee.

¶111

¶112

Such part of the product, grown out of loundation seed, by a larmer, chosen by the seed manufacturers, as is not sold and used as seed, shall be lrable to be levied the market fee. For this purpose. the Executive Heads of the Market Committees, shall be entifled to require the Seed Manufacturers, operating within lhe notified area. to furnish the relevant particulars and take consequential steps.

¶113

There shall be no order as to cosls

¶114

L. NARASIMHA REDDY. J.

¶115

Dt. 08-02-2005.

¶116

Note:

¶117

Advocate fee lor the learned Standing Counsel, is fixed at Rs.1,500/- (Rupees one thousand five hundred only), in each case.

¶118

L.R. copy to be marked

Smt.Sai Rama Devi, D/o.Suresh Babu v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Sai Rama Devi, D/o.Suresh Babu v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Sai Rice Industries, Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Maruthi Sai Rice Industries, Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Shobha Sharma, Vs The State of Telangana

Sri M Baga Reddy Educational Society Vs The State of Telangana

Shaik Peer Mohammad Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary

Ganesh Chowdary, Vs The State of Telangana