In order to appreciate the rival arguments, it would be necessary to understand the meaning of the term "marketing"
which is the soul of the power of the market committee to levy and collect market fee under Section 31(1) of the APMC Act. The term "marketing" is not defined any where in the Act nor our attention has been drawn to any useful reference to the term in the General Clauses Act. Therefore, we are required to turn to its ordinary meaning as defined in the Dictionary. Dictionary meaning of this term, as seen from its definition given in the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, New 8th Edition, page 942, is "the activity of presenting, advertising and selling a company's products in the best possible way." The Dictionary meaning shows that marketing is not mere sale of a commodity but all that which goes into it and which finally enables the sale to take place. It also shows that there is an invitation to all intending buyers to come and buy the product. It is not confined to a single buyer and enables all the prospective purchasers to inspect the product and take a conscious decision for purchasing the product. In other words, marketing is an activity which promotes sale and enables a contract of sale to see the light of the day. It always happens before the actual sale, for after the sale of a product, there remains nothing to promote the product for it's sale. So, the term "marketing", is distinct from the legal concept of 'sale' and it always procedes the latter and enables the latter to fructify. These characteristics of the term "marketing" are also noticed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Devendra Trading Company, supra. It held that for marketing of a commodity to take place, the commodity must be displayed for sale. Relevant observations appearing in paragraph 11 are reproduced thus :
"The term 'marketed' is not defined in the Act, but word "marketing" connotes the buying and selling of an article. The commodity must be displayed for sale and by a seller and that commodity is purchased by purchaser. These acts constitute marketing of a commodity."
21. Having understood the term "marketing" so, we do not think that sale and purchase effected between respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3 within the market area of the petitioner could be considered as something amounting to marketing of palmolein oil by the respondent no. 2. The reason being that palmolein oil was never displayed for sale by the seller and there was no offer for its sale by the seller. What happened was only a sale and purchase transaction captively made between respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 3. There was no activity of advertising or presenting of palmolein oil to prospective buyers. One party agreed to import in its own right certain quantity of palmolein oil, which the other party agreed to purchase it at the agreed rate.
Bombay High Court
Mumbai Agricultural Produce ... vs The Hon\'Ble Minister For ... on 20 July, 2015
Citation;AIR 2015 Bombay 234
CORAM : Naresh H. Patil and S.B. Shukre, JJ.Read full judgment here;click here