SREENIVASA GENERAL TRADERS & ORS. ETC. v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. ETC.

of a market fee on purchase or sale by the producer to a miller in a A notified market area by a market committee within the State is taken to the notified market area of another markei committee for being _., processed i. e. de-husked into rice and sold by a rice miller to a trader or by a· trader to a trader in the. course of corinnerical trans- .actions, there cannot be any levy of market fee on such_·· purchase or B sale of rice in another noiified market area. If that be so, it must log'i- cally follow· that the subsequent sale of rice in the nptified market area of the same market committee cannot be subject to the levy of market fee on purchase or sale of rice by a miller to a trader oi by a trader to a' trader if sale or purchase of paddy within such notified market area has suffered the levy of market fee .. This is of course subject to c the qualification that such sale or purchase has taken place in the notified market area, but outside the market in that area, as enjoin- ed by the proviso tor. 74 (I). ·

R. 74 _(1) is not vesy happily worded but one part of its meaning is clear. _It was obviously introduced to grant exemption from payment of market fee on sale or purchase of agricultural .produce, livestock or products of livestock on which such fee has 4 .already been levied under sub-s. (I) of s. 12 by a market committee · -) within the State. According to the terms of r. 74 (I) read with the .proviso thereto, the fee leviable under sub-s. (!) of s. 12 on any notified agricultura]produce, livestock or products of livestock, if .paid to a market committee within the State, shall not be collected by another market committee when . such notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock is brought into the notified • market area of such other market committee for the purpose of F i-· processing, pressing, packing, storage, export and on sales effected in the course of commercial transactions between licensed traders, ·and the licensed traders and consumers. This is of course subject to production of such evidence as may be .prescribed in the bye-laws · about the payment of market fees from where it was brought.·· Upon G the construction placed by us, the exemption under r. 74 (!).is also claimable if such transactions take place within the notified market area ·Of the same market committee.. '

The.normal function of a proviso is to-except something out of ·the main enacting part or to qualify something enacted therein. which H ' but for the proviso would be within the ·purview of the ·enactment. Proviso to r. 74 (I) is added to qualify or create an exception. By • .reason - of proviso .- . tor. 74 (!),no '' exemption .. . js <;laimable . when : ' . the --

SREENIVASA G. T~ADERS ~. ANDHRA PRADESH (Sen, J.) 883

purchase or sale of any notified agricultural pr~duce, 'Iivesiock ,or products of livestock takes place by auction ot in any .other ·manner A ;,.. prescribed in the bye-laws in the market (in contradistinction tO the notified mar.ket· area) either directly or through com.i:n!ssion agents even tbougli.purcliased_in t)le same market b~ soine oth~.r niar]<:et or place within ilie Staie. In other words, r. 74 (I} read with the proviso means that if the notified agricultural produce, livestock or

r products of livestock is sold within the . market maintained. by ;a inarket committee, it is liable to pay market fee on each such sale. It does not matter whether such agricultural produce, livestock or B

products of livestock has already been subject to payment of market fee withln the notified market area of another market committee. c Learned counsel for the State strenuously contends against the taking of this view because of its serious ramifications on the income of the market committees throughout ·the State. It is no doubt true· that this would result in the market committess being deprived of the power to levy market fee on several items of notified agricultural D produce, livestock or products of livestock shown separately in Schedule II of the Rules, but that is a consequence which. cannot be •• avoided on the language or r. 74 (I). The exemption from payment of market fee under r. 74 (!) on· any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock brought into the notified market area of another market committee for the purpose mentioned therein is however claimable only on production of such evidence as may be prescribed in the bye· raws about the payment of market fees to the market committee from where it was brought. The burden of establi· shing the necessary facts to attract the exemption would lie on the petitioners. Unless the requirements of r. 74 (I) are satisfied, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. ' There is very little that we could add in the connected matters. The question as to the constitutional validity of sub-s. (6) of s. 7 of the Act and sub-s. (I) of s. 12 of the Act which is common to Writ G Petition No. 1286 of 1973, Civil Appeal No. 2108 of 1972 and Civil Appeal No. 4013 of 1982 stands disposed of. The question regarding the validity of the notification issued by the State Government declafing rice to be a notified agricultural produce under s. 2 (i) of the Act and that declaring the notified market area of Kothavalasa H Market Committee for the district of Visakhapatnam under sub-s. (4)

SUPREME COURT REPORTS {! 983) ~ s.c.R.

of s. 4 of the Act has not been pressed at the hearing. Arguments in A these matters were more or less the same and they have been dealt with .in the judgment. ~

The result therefore is that all the writ petitions and the conncected appeals must fail and are dismissed with costs. B

P.B.R. Appeals & Petition dismissed.