Madras High Court
Watery Coconut Merchant ... vs The Commissioner And The ... on 17 April, 2021
W.P.(MD).No.17928 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 17.04.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
W.P.(MD).No.17928 of 2014
and
M.P.(MD).Nos.1 and 2 of 2014
Watery Coconut Merchant Association,
Represented by its President,
S.Sangaiya ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner and the Principal Secretary to Government,
Agricultural Department, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Agriculture Marketing and Agri Business,
Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate,
Cipet Road, Guindy,
Chennai-600 032. ... Respondents
Prayer: This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent from in any
manner resorting to demand or levy market fee in respect of watery coconut,
which is not an agricultural produce nor notified agricultural produce with
reference to any notified market area as per the provisions of Tamil Nadu
Agriculture Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987, (Tamil Nadu Act
XXVII of 1989) .
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17928 of 2014
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Sankaran
For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajarajan
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed for the issue of a Writ of
Mandamus directing the respondents not to resort to any demand or levy any
market fee in respect of watery coconut, which is not an agricultural produce
nor notified agricultural produce with reference to any notified market area as
per the provisions of Tamil Nadu Agriculture Produce Marketing
(Regulation) Act, 1987, (Tamil Nadu Act XXVII of 1989) .
2. Heard Mr.G.Sankaran, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Mr.M.Rajarajan, learned Additional Government Pleader
appearing on behalf of the respondents.
3. The issue raised in the present Writ Petition was considered by
this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD).Nos.5027, 5028 and 15598 of 2013, by common
order dated 16.04.2018. The relevant portions in the order are extracted
hereunder:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17928 of 2014
“11. As earlier pointed out, the Schedule has two
columns. Therefore, Schedule must be harmoniously read and
understood as a whole. The Columns 1 and 2 will have to be
interposed against each other. Otherwise, there is absolutely no
reason for having Column No.1. Column No.1 contains the
names of the classes of agricultural produce. It is genus.
Column No.2 contains the names of the individual items of
agricultural produce. It is like species. If the intention of the
legislature was to levy fee on coconuts in all forms except
tender coconut, then, there is no need for bringing it under the
category of oil seeds. Every coconut is not an oil seed. The
petitioners had categorically submitted that they are trading in
watery coconuts which are not sold for oil extracting purpose.
They are only meant for human consumption or religious
purposes. They are not oil seeds as such. Only Kopra is used
as Oil Seeds. Since the petitioners have taken the stand that
they are not obliged to take license because they are not dealing
in coconut that is not an oil seed, this Court is of the view that
ambiguity and doubt will have to be resolved in favour of the
petitioners and against the respondents.
12. Nothing prevented the Government to include this
entry “Coconut in all forms except tender coconut” under
category 15, which is the residual or miscellaneous category.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17928 of 2014
Likewise, they have not been included under the vegetable
category. They have instead been specifically included under
the “Oil seeds category. Watery coconuts cannot by any stretch
of imagination be classified as oil seeds.
13. This Court is of the view that the Amendment made to
the Schedule vide G.O.(Ms).No.222 Agriculture Department
dated 01.10.2010 cannot be said to have made any difference to
the legal position enunciated in the judgment of this Court in
S.A.(MD).No.645 of 2008 dated 24.09.2008. In AIR 1992 SC
604 (State of Haryana Vs. Bhajanlal), it was held that where
the allegations made in the complaint even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offences, the complaint can be quashed.”
4. In view of the above, it is clear that the watery coconut will
not fall within the category stipulated and therefore, there cannot be any
demand or levy of market fee. By recording so, this Court held that a trader
need not take a licence for trading any watery coconut.
5. It is, therefore, clear that the above order answers the
apprehension raised by the petitioner. If at all there is any subsequent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17928 of 2014
development, it is always left open to the petitioner to independently agitate
the same in the manner known to law.
6. This Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
17.04.2021
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
tsg
To
1. The Commissioner and the Principal Secretary to Government,
Agricultural Department, Secretariat,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner,
Agriculture Marketing and Agri Business,
Thiru.Vi.Ka. Industrial Estate,
Cipet Road, Guindy,
Chennai-600 032.
NOTE:
In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic,
a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.P.(MD).No.17928 of 2014
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
tsg
Order made in
W.P.(MD).No.17928 of 2014
Dated:
17.04.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
