H.S. JAYANNA AND BROS. AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

H.S. JAYANNA AND BROS. AND ORS. versus STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

The Karnataka Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 and the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 deal with the same subject (rice) but do not occupy the same field; the Control Order is limited to compulsory procurement (one-third) and does not regulate the entire marketing framework, hence there is no repugnancy and the Marketing Act remains operative to the extent it regulates markets and levies market fee.

Parties
Appellants: H.S. JAY ANNA AND BROS. AND ORS.; Respondents: STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
06 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal by the Supreme Court
Outcome
Appeals and writ petitions dismissed by the Supreme Court
Legal Topics
Repugnancy Between Central Order and State Statute, Market Fee Levy, Essential Commodities Act Section 3 and Section 6, Karnataka Rice Procurement (levy) Order, 1984, Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (regulation) Act, 1966
Administrative Law Agricultural Law Constitutional Law Food Law Statutory Interpretation Repugnancy Between Central Order and State Statute Market Fee Levy Essential Commodities Act Section 3 and Section 6 +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H.S. JAY ANNA AND BROS. AND ORS.

Appellants

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal by the Supreme Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 are repugnant to the Karnataka Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 and, if so, what is the effect
  2. 2 Whether sale of rice by rice millers to the State or its agents under the Procurement (Levy) Order is a 'sale' for the purposes of Section 65 of the Marketing Act
  3. 3 Whether once paddy is subjected to levy of market fee, the rice produced from that paddy can be subjected to market fee

Ratio Decidendi

The Karnataka Rice Procurement (Levy) Order, 1984 and the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 deal with the same subject (rice) but do not occupy the same field; the Control Order is limited to compulsory procurement (one-third) and does not regulate the entire marketing framework, hence there is no repugnancy and the Marketing Act remains operative to the extent it regulates markets and levies market fee.

Court Disposition

Appeals and writ petitions dismissed by the Supreme Court

Orders

  • Appeals and writ petitions dismissed
  • No orders as to costs