ORDER
G.C. Bharuka, J.
1. The present writ petitions have been preferred by the Rice Millers having licence under the provisions of the Rice Milling Industries (Regulation) Act, 1958. They have questioned the authority of the respondent-Market Committee constituted under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (in short 'the Marketing Act') to compel the petitioners to collect market fee on levy sales of rice effected under the provisions of the Karnataka Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1984 (in short 'the Levy order) made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.
2. In an earlier judgment, in the case of Nadiga Industries and Rice Mill v State of Karnataka, a Bench of this Court relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in M/s. Chhitter Mal Narain Das v Commissioner of Sales Tax, had held to the following effect:
'As far as the first prayer made in the writ petitions is concerned, the same shall be governed by the Division Bench decision of this Court in Gangadhara Rice Mills case, supra. As far as the second prayer is concerned, wedeclare that the rice surrendered towards levy does not attract market fee, as the surrender of levy is neither a sale nor purchase, but it is done under statutory compulsion. Thus, the event of surrender of rice towards levy does not attract the market fee. However, we make it clear, if the said rice had been purchased in the market area and if it had not suffered a market fee, it is open to the Market Committee to demand market fee on such rice'.
3. But, when the present batch of writ petitions were placed for consideration before a subsequent Bench, it was felt that the issue of levy of market fee on sale of rice under procurement order needs to be reconsidered. Accordingly, as provided under Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act, the following question of law was referred to the Full Bench for Consideration:
'Whether a sale made by a Miller to the Purchase Agent under the Karnataka Rice Procurement Levy Order, 1984 can be termed as 'Sale' to subject it to the levy of Market Fee under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee Act, 1966 especially under Section 65(2) of the said Act?'.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the Market Committee has brought to our notice a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Food Corporation of India v State of Kerala. On a reading of the said judgment, it is clear that the question referred to us has been squarely answered by the Supreme Court in paragraph 35 of the judgment. The relevant portion is quoted here under:
'35. There is a group of special leave petitions preferred by millers. They challenged before the High Court the demand of market fee under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 on rice. The basis of their challenge was that there was no sale to demand the market fee when the rice was procured under the levy orders. According to the appellants in these matters there was compulsory acquisition of stocks under the levy orders and therefore, there was no sale. In the earlier paras, we have dealt with and have arrived at a finding that the disputed transactions are sales. The same view was takenby the High Court and consequently, the writ petitions filed by the millers were dismissed. We affirm the view of the High Court'.
5. In the above view of the matter, it is held that, the earlier Bench decision of this Court in the case of Nadiga Industries, supra, stands impliedly overruled. We further hold that the sale of rice by a rice miller to the State Government or its agent as envisaged under the procurement order is a sale for the purpose of Section 65(2) of the Marketing Act, thus, making purchaser thereof liable to pay market fee in accordance with Section 2(a) of the said Act.
6. Now let the present writ petitions be placed before the appropriate Division Bench, for final disposal on merits.