ORDER : Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. The captioned writ petitions have been filed challenging the endorsement and notices issued by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (APMC), wherein petitioners have been directed to obtain license from the APMC under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, for the purchase of food grains used for feeding poultry. The petitioners contend that the food grains are being purchased solely for personal consumption and not for trading purposes, and hence, the endorsement and notices issued are illegal and unsustainable. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under: The petitioners have been engaged in the business of poultry farming. The petitioners are engaged in large-scale poultry farming, rearing around five lakh birds, and purchases food grains to feed the birds. 3. In response to the petitioners operations, the respondent/APMC issued an endorsement requiring the petitioner to obtain a license under the APMC Act, contending that the procurement of food grains for poultry feed falls under the regulation of the APMC. The petitioners challenges this endorsement, arguing that the food grains are purchased exclusively for personal use in the poultry farm, not for trade, and hence no license is required. 4. The petitioners assert that its poultry farming operation, which involves the feeding of a large number of birds, is classified as an agricultural activity under Section 2(1)(d) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The purchase of food grains for feeding birds in a poultry farm is inherently linked to agricultural use, and thus the petitioner argues that it does not fall under the commercial trading activities regulated by the APMC Act. 5. Furthermore, the petitioners contend that the APMC Act is meant to regulate the buying and selling of agricultural produce in a market context. Since the petitioners are purchasing food grains strictly for its own consumption, there is no element of trade or commercial transaction involved. The petitioners emphasize that the endorsement issued by the APMC is therefore without legal basis and should be quashed. 6. On the other hand, the respondents argue that the scale of the petitioners operations, which involves rearing five lakh birds, qualifies as large-scale consumption of food grains. The respondents claim that any entity involved in purchasing agricultural produce in large quantities must obtain a license under the APMC Act, regardless of whether the produce is used for commercial trading or personal purposes. The respondents claim that any entity involved in purchasing agricultural produce in large quantities must obtain a license under the APMC Act, regardless of whether the produce is used for commercial trading or personal purposes. The respondents assert that the regulatory framework of the APMC Act is designed to ensure transparency and protect farmers in the sale of agricultural produce. Therefore, even though the petitioners are using the food grains for feeding poultry, the magnitude of the procurement requires regulatory oversight and licensing. 7. Upon reviewing the relevant legal provisions, it is clear that under Section 2(1)(d) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, poultry farming is explicitly defined as an agricultural activity. This classification has significant implications for the present case. Agricultural activities are generally exempt from the commercial regulations applicable to the buying and selling of agricultural produce. The Court finds that the petitioners procurement of food grains for the sole purpose of feeding birds in a poultry farm constitutes an extension of this agricultural activity. 8. Section 8 of the APMC Act regulates the marketing of notified agricultural produce in a market area. It provides that no person can use any place in the market area for the marketing of such produce or operate as a trader, commission agent, or other market functionary without a license granted by the market committee. 9. The critical aspect of this provision is that it applies to marketing activities within a market area. The term "marketing" refers to buying and selling activities that involve the commercial transaction of agricultural produce. Section 8(b)(ii) clearly outlines that a license is required for those who operate as traders, brokers, processors, and similar market functionaries in relation to the marketing of the notified agricultural produce. 10. Section 8 of the APMC Act reads as under: "8. The term "marketing" refers to buying and selling activities that involve the commercial transaction of agricultural produce. Section 8(b)(ii) clearly outlines that a license is required for those who operate as traders, brokers, processors, and similar market functionaries in relation to the marketing of the notified agricultural produce. 10. Section 8 of the APMC Act reads as under: "8. Control of marketing of agricultural produce.-(1) After the market is established.- (a) no local authority shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force establish, authorise or continue or allow to be established, authorized or continued any place in the market area for the marketing of any notified agricultural produce: Provided that a local authority may establish or continue any place for retail sale of any notified agricultural produce other than cattle, sheep and goats subject to the condition that no market functionary shall operate in such place except in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and the rules and the bye-laws and standing orders of the market committee; (b) no person shall, without, or otherwise than in conformity with the terms and conditions of a license granted by the market committee in this behalf.- (i) use in any place in the market area for the marketing of the notified agricultural produce; or (ii) operate in the market area or in any market therein as a trader, commission agent, broker, processor, weighman, warehouseman, or in any other capacity in relation to the marketing of the notified agricultural produce: Provided that nothing contained in clause (b) shall apply.- (i) to the sale of such agricultural produce if the producer of such produce is himself its seller; or (ii) to the purchase of such produce if the purchaser is a person who purchases such produce for his domestic consumption. (2) The Market Committee shall regulate the marketing of notified agricultural produce in the market yards, market sub-yards and sub-market yards." 11. In the present case, the petitioners are not engaged in any marketing or trading activity. In both petitions, petitioners are purchasing food grains exclusively for feeding its poultry, which is a part of its agricultural operations. The grain is not being sold or traded but is used solely for consumption within the poultry farm. Therefore, Section 8 does not apply, as the petitioners are not involved in the commercial marketing of agricultural produce. In both petitions, petitioners are purchasing food grains exclusively for feeding its poultry, which is a part of its agricultural operations. The grain is not being sold or traded but is used solely for consumption within the poultry farm. Therefore, Section 8 does not apply, as the petitioners are not involved in the commercial marketing of agricultural produce. The purchase of food grains for personal agricultural use does not fall within the ambit of the APMC Act. 12. Additionally, the proviso to Section 8(b)(ii) makes it clear that the section does not apply to the purchase of agricultural produce if it is for domestic consumption. In this case, although the food grains are used for feeding poultry rather than for human consumption, the principle remains the same. The grains are being used for the petitioners own agricultural operations, which is akin to domestic consumption and thus exempt from licensing requirements. 13. Rule 76 of the APMC Rules governs the licensing of traders, commission agents, brokers, processors, and others involved in the trade of notified agricultural produce. It stipulates that no person shall operate as a trader, commission agent, broker, or other market functionary in the market area without obtaining a license from the APMC. Rule 76 of the APMC Rules reads as under: "76. Licensed commission agents, etc.-(1) No person shall operate in the market area as a commission agent, broker, processor, exporter, importer, ginner, presser, crusher, stockist, warehousemen or retail trader in notified agricultural produce except under and in accordance with a licence granted by the committee under this Rule. (1-A) No person who is in the service of another person of a firm whether holding any licence granted by the committee or not shall be eligible to hold a licence as a broker. If any licensed broker enters service or does business other than that for which he holds a licence, he shall be deemed to have committed a breach of the conditions of the licence. (2) Every application for grant or renewal of a licence to operate in the market area.- (i) as a commission agent, broker, exporter, importer, stockist, warehouseman, ginner, presser, crusher or processor shall be in Form 41; (ii) as a retail trader shall be in Form 42; (iii) xxxxxxxx. (2) Every application for grant or renewal of a licence to operate in the market area.- (i) as a commission agent, broker, exporter, importer, stockist, warehouseman, ginner, presser, crusher or processor shall be in Form 41; (ii) as a retail trader shall be in Form 42; (iii) xxxxxxxx. (3) The maximum licence fees payable for a licence to operate as a commission agent, broker, processor, exporter, importer, ginner, presser, crusher, stockist, warehouseman or retail trader specified in column (2) of the Table below shall be as specified in the corresponding entries in column (3) thereof. TABLE Sl.No. Category Maximum fees leviable per annum (1) (2) (3) 1 Trader 200 2 Commission agent 200 3 Broker 100 4 Processor 100 5 Exporter 100 6 Importer 100 7 Ginner 100 8 Presser 100 9 Crusher 100 10 Stockist 100 11 Retail trader 25 12 Warehouseman 100 Explanation.- A person who has applied for grant of a licence in respect of two or more categories specified in column (2) of the Table above, may be granted a composite licence in respect of all such categories on payment of a separate fee for each such categories. (4) On receipt of such application the committee after making such enquiries, as may be considered necessary may if it finds no ground to refuse the licence asked for grant him the licence applied for in Form 36. On the grant of such licence, the applicant shall execute an agreement in such form as the committee may determine, agreeing to conform with these rules and the bye-laws. (5) The committee may, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to grant a licence to any person who is either not solvent or otherwise disqualified under the Act, rules or bye-laws, or whose operations in the market area are not likely to further the efficient working of the market under the control of the committee. (6) A licence granted under sub-rule (4) shall, unless renewed remain in force till the ends of tenth market year including the year in which it has been granted. (7) Every application for renewal of a licence shall be made one month before the expiry of its period. (6) A licence granted under sub-rule (4) shall, unless renewed remain in force till the ends of tenth market year including the year in which it has been granted. (7) Every application for renewal of a licence shall be made one month before the expiry of its period. (8) If the application for renewal is made in accordance with sub-rule (7), the applicant shall be deemed to be duly licensed until orders are passed on the application. (9) The names of all licensed commission agents, brokers, processors, exporters, importers, ginners, pressers, crushers, stockists and retail traders shall be entered separately in a register to be maintained for the purpose." 14. This rule, like Section 8, applies to individuals and entities engaged in the commercial trade or marketing of agricultural produce. The petitioners, however, are not traders or a market functionary; it is purchasing food grains solely for feeding its poultry. Since these food grains are not being bought for sale or commercial transaction but for personal agricultural use, Rule 76 is inapplicable to the petitioners operations. 15. The petitioners are not operating as a trader, processor, or warehouseman, nor is it involved in any commercial marketing activity in a regulated market. Therefore, the authorities cannot insist that the petitioners apply for a license under Rule 76, as its activities fall outside the scope of the APMC Act's regulatory framework. 16. The APMC Act, as outlined, is primarily concerned with the regulation of trade and marketing of agricultural produce in the context of commercial transactions. It applies to entities that engage in the buying and selling of agricultural products within the regulated markets, such as traders, commission agents, and others involved in commercial activities. In this case, the petitioners are purchasing food grains solely for its own use, not for any trading or resale purposes. The activity of purchasing food grains to feed livestock (in this case, poultry) is distinct from commercial transactions and does not fall under the regulatory ambit of the APMC Act. 17. The Court finds that the licensing requirement under the APMC Act is aimed at regulating the trade of agricultural produce. It is not intended to cover purchases made for personal agricultural use, such as feeding birds in a poultry farm. The petitioners operations do not involve the resale or commercial distribution of food grains, and therefore, the insistence on obtaining a license is misplaced. It is not intended to cover purchases made for personal agricultural use, such as feeding birds in a poultry farm. The petitioners operations do not involve the resale or commercial distribution of food grains, and therefore, the insistence on obtaining a license is misplaced. The impugned endorsement and the notices requiring the petitioners to apply for a license under the APMC Act and to furnish accounts are found to be erroneous and without legal justification. Conclusions: 18. The actions of the APMC officials, insisting that the petitioners apply for a license under the Karnataka APMC Act and furnish accounts, are clearly illegal and without legal foundation, as they exceed the authority granted under the Act. The APMC Act and the corresponding Rules regulate the commercial marketing of agricultural produce in designated market areas. Section 8(b)(ii) of the APMC Act specifically governs the operations of traders, commission agents, and other market functionaries involved in the marketing of notified agricultural produce. In the present case, the petitioners are engaged in poultry farming, an activity classified as agriculture under Section 2(1)(d) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. The purchase of food grains for feeding its own poultry does not constitute marketing or commercial trading; rather, it is for personal agricultural use. The proviso to Section 8(b)(ii) of the APMC Act explicitly exempts purchasers who buy agricultural produce for domestic consumption, which in this case extends to agricultural use like feeding poultry. In the case of State of Karnataka vs. E. Bhaskar Rao (2003) SCC Online Kar 146, this Court reaffirmed that poultry farming is an agricultural activity, irrespective of the scale of operations, and falls under the definition of agriculture, exempting it from the commercial licensing requirements of the APMC. Similarly, in Canara Bank vs. M.D. Chikkaswamy (2001) SCC Online Kar 562, the Court ruled that loans given for poultry farming were considered for agricultural purposes, recognizing poultry farming as part of agricultural activity. Therefore, insisting on a license for the petitioner, who is purchasing food grains for personal agricultural use, is an unlawful overreach by APMC officials. They must refrain from exceeding their statutory authority and applying the law in situations where it is not applicable, as doing so amounts to an abuse of power, unsupported by the APMC Act and the relevant case law. 19. They must refrain from exceeding their statutory authority and applying the law in situations where it is not applicable, as doing so amounts to an abuse of power, unsupported by the APMC Act and the relevant case law. 19. In light of the above findings, the Court concludes that the endorsement and the notices, requiring the petitioners to obtain a license under the APMC Act and to furnish accounts, are unsustainable in law. The petitioners activity of purchasing food grains for feeding poultry is classified as an agricultural activity, which does not require licensing under the APMC Act. Therefore, the endorsement and the notices issued by the respondent/APMC are thus quashed. 20. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER (i) The writ petitions are allowed; (ii) The impugned endorsement and the notices issued by the respondent/APMC respectively are hereby quashed; (iii) The petitioners are not required to furnish accounts and obtain a license under the APMC Act for the purchase of food grains used in its poultry farming activities; (iv) No orders as to costs. (v) Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.