COMMON JUDGMENT: The plaintiffs are the appellants in these second appeals. The suits in O.S.Nos.690 and 714 of 1986 were filed by the plaintiffs for declaration that the bye-law No.2 (v) (b) of the Kanyakumari Market Committee is invalid and void, to declare that plaintiffs’ right to transport the cashew kernals from places outside Kanyakumari District into Kanyakumari District and to transport the cashew kernels from Kanyakumari District to places outside Kanyakumari District and to transport the Cashew kernels between the factories of the plaintiff in Kanyakumari District without having any liability to pay any market fee or other fee to the defendant and without having any liability to get any permit for the transport of the cashew kernels and for an injunction to restrain the defendant and the officials under them from stopping the vehicles and collecting any market fee or other fee on the transport of cashew kernels effected by the plaintiffs from places outside Kanyakumari District into Kanyakumari District and on the transport of Cashew kernel effected from Kanyakumari District to places outside Kanyakumari District and on the transport of cashew kernels effected between the factories and godowns of the plaintiffs in Kanyakumari District and insist upon the production of any permit for the transports of the cashew kernels. The respondent contested the suits and ultimately the suits were decreed as prayed for by the plaintiffs. 2.Aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the respondent herein preferred appeals in A.S. Nos.68 and 69 of 1989 before the Subordinate Judge at Nagercoil, which were allowed and the judgments and decrees passed by the trial Court were set aside. As against the said judgments and decrees, the present second appeals have been preferred by the plaintiffs. 3. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they were doing the business of processing cashew nuts and exporting cashew kernels to foreign countries. The Plaintiffs use to purchase raw cashew kernels from various places in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and also from other Districts in Tamil Nadu. After purchase, they were transporting raw cashews by lorries to their factories and godowns in Kanyakumari District. After processing, the cashew kernels were sent to their Head Office at Quilon and from there they are being exported to foreign countries. After purchase, they were transporting raw cashews by lorries to their factories and godowns in Kanyakumari District. After processing, the cashew kernels were sent to their Head Office at Quilon and from there they are being exported to foreign countries. Under Sec.18 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Product Markets Act, market fee can be levied by market committee in respect of purchase or sale of notified agricultural produces effected within the notified area. Under Sec.18(4)(a) of the Act the officials of the market committee were empowered to stop only the vehicles which carry the notified agricultural produces out of the notified area. Under Sec.4 of the said Act, the State Government is competent to declare notified areas and agricultural produces. Before the said declaration under Sec.4 of the Act, the Government notifies their intention under Sec.3 of the Act. In this case, the Government of Tamil Nadu issued notification in G.O.Ms. No.524, Food and Agriculture, dated 15.2.1963 notifying its intention of exercising control over the purchase and sale of coconut and cashewnut in Kanyakumari District. Under notification issued Under G.O.Ms. No.777, dated 9.3.1964, the declaration under Sec.4 of the Act was made by the Government declaring Kanyakumari District as a notified area for the purpose of the said Act in respect of Coconut and Cashewnut. Thus, the Government has notified cashewnut also as a notified agricultural produces under the Act as far as Kanyakumari District is concerned. On 13.3.1986, the plaintiffs lorries were detained by the marketing committee and levied compounding fee as they have transported cashew kurnels; that the plaintiffs have issued notice dated 13.6.1986 through their advocate to the defendant requesting them to inform their subordinates to abstain from collecting illegal market fee on transport of cashew kernels and also from insisting upon production of permits for such transports. The defendant sent a reply dated 15.7.1986 to the plaintiffs advocate justifying their action, hence the suit. 4.The defendant contested the suit on the ground that the plaintiffs purchase cashewnut which is a notified agricultural produce within the notified market area and sold the same within the notified market area as such they are liable to pay market fee; that cashewnut and cashew kernels are not different products. In common parlance or in the market or in the business community the word "kernel" is not used, hence the plaintiffs are liable to pay market fee. 5. In common parlance or in the market or in the business community the word "kernel" is not used, hence the plaintiffs are liable to pay market fee. 5. The trial Court found that cashew kernels are different from cashewnut; that the agricultural produces defined under Sec.2(1) of the Act does not include the processed products and the plaintiffs had a right to transport the processed cashew kernel from the notified market area to outside areas without paying the market fee and also without permit; that the defendants are not vested with the jurisdiction to levy market fee on cashew kernels as they were not notified goods and ultimately decreed the suit as prayed for by declaring bye-law 2 (v) (b) as invalid. 6.On appeal, the first appellate Court held that the bye-law 2 (v) (b) is valid in law; that cashew kernels also declared as a notified agricultural produce by the Government, whether processed or unprocessed and ultimately allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 7.At the time of admission of these second appeals, the following substantial questions of law are framed as arisen for consideration: (i) Whether the Kanyakumari Market Committee, the respondent herein has got powers under Sec.30 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959 to frame the bye-law 2 (v) (b) whereby it has included in the definition of cashewnut the different produce namely cashew kernel? (ii) Whether the bye-law 2 (v) (b) framed by the respondent committee is not in violation of the Government Order passed in G.O.Ms. No.777, Food and Agriculture, dated 9.3.1964 marked as Ex.A-3 as the G.O. Notifies that cashewnut is only subject to the levy of fees and does not notify about the cashew kernel which is a different agriculture produce? (iii) Whether the cashew nut and cashew kernel are not two different agricultural products? 8. No.777, Food and Agriculture, dated 9.3.1964 marked as Ex.A-3 as the G.O. Notifies that cashewnut is only subject to the levy of fees and does not notify about the cashew kernel which is a different agriculture produce? (iii) Whether the cashew nut and cashew kernel are not two different agricultural products? 8. Now, we look into the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Product Markets Act which runs as follows: "Section 2 - Definition - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (i) "agricultural produces" includes anything produced in the course of agriculture and any other produce, whether processed or unprocessed, declared by the Government, by notification, to be an agricultural produce for the purposes of this Act." "Section 3 - Notification of intention of exercising control over purchase and sale of agricultural produce in specified area - The Government may, by notification, declare their intention of exercising control over the purchase and sale of such agricultural produce and in such area as may be specified in the notification. Such notification shall state that any objections or suggestions which may be received by the Government, within a period to be specified in the notification, will be considered by them." "Section 18 - Levy of (fee) by market committee - The market committee shall levy a fee on any notified agricultural produce bought or sold in the notified market area at a rate not exceeding forty-five paise and subject to a minimum of twenty-five paise for every hundred rupees of the aggregate amount, for which the notified agricultural produce is bought or sold whether for cash or for deferred payment or other valuable consideration" "Section 30 - By-laws (1) Subject to any rules made by the Government under Section 29 and with the previous sanction of the Director, a market committee may, in respect of the notified area for which it was established, make by-laws for the regulation of the business and the conditions of trading therein; Provided that where a market committee fails to make by laws under this sub-section within one month from the date of its establishment, the Director may make such by-laws as he thinks fit and the by-laws so made shall be deemed to be by-laws made by the market committee and may be amended or varied by the Director or, with his previous sanction, by the market committee. (2) Any by-law made under this Section may provide that any contravention there of shall be punishable with fine which may extend to fifty rupees.“ G.O.Ms. No.524 runs as follows: FOOD AND AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT Declaration of exercising control over purchase and sale of coconut and cashewnut in Kanyakumari District under Madras Agricultural Produce Markets Act. (G.O.Ms. No.524, Food and Agriculture, 15th February, 1963) II-1 No.1365 of 1963 ”In exercise of power conferred by Section 3 of the Madras Agricultural Produce Market Act 1959 (Madras Act 23 of 1959) and in supersession of the Food and Agriculture Department Notification No.356 of 1950, dated the 31st July 1950,published at Page 1389 of Part II of the Fort St. George Gazette, dated the 19th August 1959, the Governor of Madras hereby declare his intention of exercising control over the purchase and sale of coconut and cashewnut in the Kanyakumari District. Any objection or suggestion which may be received by the Government of Madras within a period of one month from the date of publication of this notification in the Kanyakumari District Gazette, will be considered by them. Objections and Suggestions should be addressed to Secretary to the Government of Madras in the Food and Agriculture Department through the Director of Agriculture, Madras. D.PHILIP DEVAPRASAD Deputy Secretary to Government G.O.Ms. No.777 runs as follows: Declaration of Kanyakumari District as notified area in respect of coconut and cashewnut under Madras Agricultural Produce Markets Act. (G.O.Ms. No.777, Food and Agriculture, 9th March, 1964) II-1 No.1345 of 1964. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 4 of the Madras Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1959 (Madras Act 23 of 1959) the Governor of Madras hereby declares that the Kanyakumari district shall be a notified area for the purpose of the said Act in respect of coconut and cashewnut, the intention to make such declaration having been previously published as required by Section 3 of the said Act. S.A.VISWANATHAN Deputy Secretary to Government The definition for Bye-law 2 (v) (b) runs as follows: “2 (v) (b)” cashewnut “ means unshelled nuts of cashew and includes all kinds of shelled cashew kernels as a whole, split and broken.” 9. Under Sec.3 of the Act, the Government has issued notification of intention for exercising control over purchase and sale of agricultural produces in Kanyakumari District, which is evident in G.O.Ms. No.524, Food and Agriculture Department dated 15.2.1963. Under Sec.3 of the Act, the Government has issued notification of intention for exercising control over purchase and sale of agricultural produces in Kanyakumari District, which is evident in G.O.Ms. No.524, Food and Agriculture Department dated 15.2.1963. Under Sec.4 of the Act, Kanyakumari District was declared as notified area in respect of coconut and cashewnut under Madras Agricultural Products Market Act. Admittedly, the said Government Order’s are not challenged by the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs have also failed to join the Government of Tamil Nadu as a party in the suits, who is competent to speak about the disputes regarding the notified area as well as notified goods. Under Sec.2(1) of the Act, the agricultural produces includes anything produced in the course of agriculture and any other produce, whether processed or unprocessed, declared by the Government by notification, to be an agricultural produce for the purpose of the said Act. It is evident from the said definition that agricultural produces are including both processed and unprocessed produces. Cashewnut is in the form of unprocessed produce as the same is with shells; whereas cashew kernels are processed as the same is without shells as such cashew kernals also shall be deemed as agricultural produce as defined under Sec.2(1) of the Act. Under G.O.Ms. No.524, the Government has declared its intention of exercising control over purchase and sale of cashewnut in Kanyakumari District. Admittedly, no objection has been sent by the plaintiffs. Under G.O.Ms. No.777, food and agricultural department dated 9.3.1964, the Government has declared that Kanyakumari District shall be the notified area for the purpose of the said Act in respect of cashewnut. 10. As pointed out by me supra that cashewnut is inclusive of cashew kernels, the findings of the lower appellate Court relating to the said point is confirmed. 11.It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that under the bye-law 2 (v) (b), the defendants are attempting to levy market fee and that the bye-law 2 (v) (b) is beyond the scope of Sec.30 of the Act, hence it is invalid. Under Sec.30 of the Act, it is stipulated that subject to any rules made by the Government under Sec.29 with the previous sanction of the Director, a market committee may, in respect of the notified area for which it was established, make by-laws for the regulation of the business and the conditions of trading therein. Under Sec.30 of the Act, it is stipulated that subject to any rules made by the Government under Sec.29 with the previous sanction of the Director, a market committee may, in respect of the notified area for which it was established, make by-laws for the regulation of the business and the conditions of trading therein. It is evident that the respondent market committee was established under the Act and the bye-laws were made in the regulation of the business and the condition of trading as such bye-law 2 (v) (b) is well within the scope of Sec.30 of the Act. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court in this regard also is confirmed. Consequently, all the three common substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant and I do not find any reasons to interfere with the well considered decree and judgment passed by the first appellate Court. In the result, the second appeal fails, liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs.