Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1069 (PAT)

Chowbey Tambaku Factory v. State Of Bihar

2002-10-03

R.N.PRASAD, RAVI S.DHAVAN

body2002
Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. M/s Chowbey Tambaku Factory calls itself a partnership firm and carries on business in Mohalla Mandroja, District Bhagalpur. The petitioner firm sells chewing tobacco. The petitioner acknowledges in paragraph 3, that chewing tobacco is popularly know as khaini. This matter relates to the levy of market fee under the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 . 2. The petition has been filed with a very clear intention that petitioner seeks a direction restraining the respondents, the State of Bihar, the Bihar State Agricultural Marketing Board, the Agricultural Produce Market committee, Bhagalpur and the Secretary, Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bhagalpur, from enforcing the provision of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (here-in-after referred to as the Act). 3. The petition makes a long recital in trying to place legal submissions, to the. effect, that State of Bihar does not have any legislative power to levy market fee on tobacco. The Court has gone through the writ petition in its submission and finds that there is not a whisper nor a word on the mechanism of the manner in which market fee has been scheduled to be levied on tobacco. The subject on which the levy is made, is not tobacco. It is narcotics. In the circumstances, Submissions made in the writ petition are out of context and irrelevant. Perhaps they may have been made to divert the attention of the State on a mis-conceived notion that the levy on tobacco is beyond its legislative power and in the circumstances the question of a market committee concerned requiring returns to be filed and, thereafter, an assessment on sale of tobacco does not arise. 4. conspicuous by its absence is the aspect that the petitioner does no.t even draw the attention of the Court that if tobacco be the product the subject has been evaded by the petitioner. The subject is Narcotics. It is item No. XI in the Schedule of the Act. In the circumstances, it will be necessary for the Court to refer to the Schedule of the Act. The Schedule is in reference to Sec. 2(1)(a) of the Act. sec. 2(1) (a) of the Act refers to the expression "Agricultural produce." In so far as "Agricultural produce", is concerned the subjects are mentioned and the products are listed against the subjects. The Schedule is in reference to Sec. 2(1)(a) of the Act. sec. 2(1) (a) of the Act refers to the expression "Agricultural produce." In so far as "Agricultural produce", is concerned the subjects are mentioned and the products are listed against the subjects. Section 2(1) (a) itself says: "Agriculture produce means all produce whether processed or non processed, manufactured or not, of Agriculture, Horticulture, Plantation, Animal Husbandry, Forest Sericulture, Pisciculture, and includes livestock or poultry as specified in the Schedule." It needs to be noticed that "Agricultural produce" as a subject is identified in the Schedule. Against each subject a product is referred to as a species. The species are named. If the subject of "Agricultural produce" is cereals, then the product species are described in the Schedule as paddy, rice, wheat, maize, barley etc. Likewise if the subject is pulses, the product species is described as gram, arhar, masur, urad, khesari, mung etc. Again if the subject of "Agricultural produce" be oilseeds, the product species is described as mustard, rape and toria, linseed etc. Further, if the subject of "Agricultural Produce" is Oils, then the product the species is "all vegetable oils". If the subject be "Fruits" then, against this the product species are the named fruits. If the subject of "Agricultural produce" be vegetables, then the vegetables have been specifically named. 5. Now coming to the subject against which tobacco has been named. In this regard the subject entry of the "Agricultural produce" is Narcotics. The product species are named against it, as: IX Narcotics (1) Tobacco (2) Zarda (3) Zafrani Zarda etc. 6. This aspect of the matter which the Court has noticed is absent in the petition. 7. The issue is not that tobacco has not been named. It is. Tobacco is the product. The subject is Narcotics. The argument as made before the Court is flimsy and does not hold. It is very difficult for the Court to hold that tobacco is not narcotics and this has not been argued. 8. In so far as the submission has been rounded to submit that khaini is not tobacco, Khaini is noting but the Hindi translation of tobacco, that is chewing tobacco. Call it by what name, tobacco shredded or otherwise is narcotics. 8. In so far as the submission has been rounded to submit that khaini is not tobacco, Khaini is noting but the Hindi translation of tobacco, that is chewing tobacco. Call it by what name, tobacco shredded or otherwise is narcotics. Then, the petitioner firm presents its case by acknowledging in paragraph 3 that it "carries on business in chewing tobacco, popularly known as khaini." The subject is Narcotics. The field is covered by the Act. 9. The writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed.