Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs Bombay Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee & Anr. (Supreme Court of India)
In Britannia Industries Ltd. Vs Bombay Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee & Anr., the Supreme Court of India considered whether “edible oil”, “Vanaspati” and “sugar” fall within the definition of “agricultural produce” under Section 2(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963.
The appellant had filed a writ petition seeking declarations that the Act was not applicable to sugar, cashew nuts, refined oil, vanaspati and dry fruits purchased by it; that the notification dated 25.09.1987 adding these items to the Schedule was illegal; and that bulk sugar purchased directly from sugar mills located outside the market area was not covered by the Act. During pendency before the High Court, the challenge regarding cashew nuts and dry fruits was given up. The core issue before the Supreme Court was applicability of the Act to edible oil, vanaspati and sugar.
Section 2(1)(a) defines “agricultural produce” as all produce (whether processed or not) of agriculture specified in the Schedule. The Court noted that agricultural produce must necessarily be specified in the Schedule. The High Court had observed that “sugarcane” was separately listed under Item VI in the Schedule along with Gul and Sugar, reflecting legislative intent to treat sugar as a produce of sugarcane. The absence of the word “manufacture” in the definition did not affect the status of sugar as agricultural produce.
