Madras High Court
Vandamedu Spices Trading Llp vs Cardmons Growers Forever Private … on 29 August, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 08.08.2025
Pronounced on : 29.08.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAJASEKAR
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.8977, 9591, 9592 and 12045 of 2025
W.A.(MD)No.1594 of 2025:-
Vandamedu Spices Trading LLP,
Lakshmi Mahal,
Near Scism School,
Bodinayakanur,
Theni District. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Cardmons Growers Forever Private Limited,
Rep. by its Managing Director M.Arumugam,
Door No.17A, New Colony Second Street,
Ward No.33, Bodinayakanur, Theni District.
2.The Spices Board,
(Ministry of Commerce and
Industry Govt. of India)
Rep. by its Secretary,
1/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
Sugandga Bhavan,
NH Bypass, PB No.2277
Palarivattom Post,
Kochi, Kerala.
3.The Director (Marketing),
Spices Board,
Sugandga Bhavan,
NH Bypass, PB No.2277
Palarivattom Post,
Kochi, Kerala.
4.The Assistant Director (Marketing),
Spices Board,
Kurangani Road,
Bodinayakanur,
Theni District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow
the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.27726
of 2024 dated 28.04.2025 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.Srinath Sridaran, Senior Counsel,
For Mr.B.Prasanna Vinoth.
For Respondents : Mr.Raja Karthikeyan for R1
Mr.S.Poornachandran,
Standing Counsel for R2 to R4.
W.A.(MD)No.1722 of 2025:-
M/s.Sonali Exports, Rep. by its Proprietor,
S.Logeshwar, S/o.Sankar,
No.39, Bodi Theni Main Road,
S.S.Puram, Bodinayakkanur,
Theni District. ... Appellant
2/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
Vs.
1.Idukki District Traditional Cardamom
Producer Co., Ltd.,,
Rep. by its Director, T.V. Ramkrishnan,
No. 5/25, Aalamarathu Street,
Cumbum, Theni 625 516.
2.The Spices Board,
(Ministry of Commerce and
Industry Govt. of India)
Rep. by its Secretary,
Sugandga Bhavan,
NH Bypass, PB No.2277
Palarivattom Post, Kochi, Kerala.
3.The Director (Marketing),
Spices Board, Sugandga Bhavan,
NH Bypass, PB No.2277
Palarivattom Post, Kochi, Kerala.
4.The Assistant Director (Marketing),
Spices Board, Kurangani Road,
Bodinayakanur, Theni District.
5.Kerala Cardamom Trading Company,
D.No.249, Krishna Nagar,
Ward No.3, Bodi-Thevaram Road,
Bodinayakanur,
Theni District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow
the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.26544
of 2024 dated 28.04.2025 on the file of this Court.
3/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
For Appellant : Mr.B.Saravanan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.Mohammed Imran,
For M/s.Ajmal Associates.
For Respondents : Mr.Raja Karthikeyan for R1
Mr.S.Poornachandran,
Standing Counsel for R2 to R4.
W.A.(MD)No.2171 of 2025:-
M/s.Yuva Spices,
Rep. by its Proprietorship,
G.Sivakumar,
No.13/88B, Ambazhapupumkudiyil Building,
Thottikanam Poopara Road,
Poopara, Idukki,
Kerala 685 619. ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Idukki District Traditional Cardamom
Producer Co., Ltd.,,
Rep. by its Director,
T.V. Ramkrishnan,
No. 5/25, Aalamarathu Street,
Cumbum, Theni 625 516.
2.The Spices Board,
(Ministry of Commerce and
Industry Govt. of India)
Rep. by its Secretary,
Sugandga Bhavan,
NH Bypass, PB No.2277
Palarivattom Post,
Kochi, Kerala.
4/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
3.The Director (Marketing),
Spices Board,
Sugandga Bhavan,
NH Bypass, PB No.2277
Palarivattom Post,
Kochi, Kerala.
4.The Assistant Director (Marketing),
Spices Board,
Kurangani Road,
Bodinayakanur,
Theni District.
5.Kerala Cardamom Trading Company,
D.No.249, Krishna Nagar,
Ward No.3, Bodi-Thevaram Road,
Bodinayakanur,
Theni District. ... Respondents
Prayer : Writ Appeal filed under Clause XV of Letters Patent, to allow
the writ appeal by setting aside the order passed in W.P.(MD)No.26544
of 2024 dated 28.04.2025 on the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Venkateshwar
For Respondents : Mr.Raja Karthikeyan for R1
Mr.S.Poornachandran,
Standing Counsel for R2 to R4.
COMMON JUDGMENT
(By G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
These writ appeals are directed against the order dated 28.04.2025
made in W.P.(MD)Nos.27727 and 26544 of 2024.
5/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
2.The writ petitioners are licensed auctioneers of Spices Board.
They filed the aforesaid writ petitions to direct the Board to forbear
Vandamedu Spices Trading LLP, Kerala Cardamom Trading Company
and other persons from conducting private on-line e-auction of
cardamom produces. The learned Single Judge after examining the
relevant provisions of the Spices Board Act, 1986 and the rules framed
thereunder allowed the writ petition. As a result, the appellants herein
and other private entities came to be prohibited from conducting
e-auctions privately in cardamom produces in future in any manner.
Secondary sales of cardamom after having procured from licensed
dealers also stood banned. Assailing the said order, this writ appeal has
been filed.
3.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants
reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and
called upon this Court to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge
and grant relief as prayed for.
6/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
4.Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents
submitted that the order of the learned Single Judge is well reasoned and
that it does not call for interference.
5.We carefully considered the rival contentions and went through
the materials on record. The Spices Board Act, 1986 is the statute
governing the field. This Act provides for constitution of a Board for the
development of export of spices and for the control of cardamom
industry including the control of cultivation of cardamom and matters
connected therewith. The Spices Board serves as a regulatory authority.
Its prime role is to safeguard the interest of farmers by ensuring that they
receive fair price for their produces. To achieve fair pricing and eliminate
the exploitation of middle men, the Spices Board conducts e-auctions
which ensure that farmers secure better returns. The statute is divided
into seven chapters. It is not necessary to refer to its various provisions
as they are not material for the present purposes.
6.Section 38 of the Act empowers the Central Government to make
rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. In exercise of the said power,
7/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
the Central Government issued the Cardamom (Licensing and Marketing)
Rules, 1987. Rules 2, 3 and 4 of the cardamom (Licensing and
Marketing) Rules, 1987 are as follows:-
“Rule 2.Definitions.- In these rules, unless the context
otherwise requires :
(a)”Act” means the Spices Board Act, 1986;
(b)”auctioneer” means a person engaged in the business
of
(c)”Dealer” means a person engaged in the business of
purchasing and selling of cardamom but does not include any
auctioneer or exporter ;
(d)”Form” means a form appended to these rules ;
(e)”Person” means an individual and includes company,
firm, society and any other association or body of individuals,
whether incorporated or not.”
“Rule 3.Conditions to carry on business in cardamom:
(1) No person shall carry on business as auctioneer or
dealer of cardamom except under and in accordance with the
terms and conditions of a licence issued under these rules and
such other instructions as may be issued, from time to time, by
the Board for the development of the cardamom industry.
(2) No producer of cardamom shall sell his produce
otherwise than through a Licensed auctioneer or to a dealer
licensed to purchase cardamom from producers:
8/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025Provided that the Board may, if it is satisfied that to ensure
remnuerative returns to growers, it is necessary to route all
cardamom through auctions, require producers to sell their
produce the licensed dealers through auctions alone.”
“Rule 4. Licensing of persons to carry on business of
cardamom.-
(1) Any person desiring to carry on business as auctioner
or dealer in any year may apply in Form A to the Board for a
license:
Provided that separate applications shall be necessary
where a person desires to be licensed in more than one capacity:
Provided further that separate license shall be necessary
for an auctioneer in respect of each centre if he desires to
conduct auctions in more than one centre.
(2) Every application shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs.
100 by a crossed demand draft or postal order drawn payable to
the Spices Board at Cochin. The Board may, if it is satisfied as to
the suitability of the appellant, issue a license to him in Form B.”
Any person desiring to carry on business as auctioneer or dealer should
apply in Form A. Form A is as follows:-
9/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 202510/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025The Spices Board if satisfied as to the suitability of the applicant shall
issue license to the applicant as auctioneer or dealer in Form B 1/II.
Form B 1 and Form B II are as follows:-
11/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 202512/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 202513/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025Every licensed dealer should maintain a register in the format given
under Form E of the Rules, 1987. The monthly statement of a licensed
dealer should be sent to the board in the format enumerated under Form F
and the same are as follows:
14/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 202515/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 202516/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025Paragraph No.34 of the order of the learned Single Judge reads as
follows:-
“34.The Spices Board for the purpose of striving towards
stabilization of prices of spices for export and evolving suitable
quality standards has introduced certification of quality through
quality marketing for spices and has also introduced measures to
control quality of spices for export by giving licenses subject to the
terms and conditions as prescribed under the marketing Rules. The
licensing marketing and conditions to carry on business in
cardamom is fully dealt with by the Cardamom (Licensing and
Marketing) Rules, 1987. Rule 3 which provides for the conditions to
carry on business in cardamom do not distinguish between the term
‘dealer’ and ‘trader’. On the other hand, it makes it clear that, it is
only after the scrutiny of the suitability of the applicants, who have
made an application for license under Rule 4 in Form A, the Spices
Board would issue a license to the applicants whoever had
succeeded in the selection process in Form B as ‘auctioneer’ or
‘dealer’. Only those licensees could carry on business in cardamom
either as ‘auctioneer’ or as ‘dealer’ of cardamom. Nowhere in the
entire scheme of trade of cardamom enumerated under Rules 1987,
the term ‘trader’ is either defined or the ‘role of a cardamom trader’
is envisaged.”The learned Single Judge then noted that nowhere in the Act or in the
Rules framed thereunder, the term trader has been defined. From this, the
17/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025learned Single Judge comes to the conclusion that in the entire scheme of
things, the role of cardamom trader is not envisaged. After extracting the
definitions of the term “dealer” in Section 2(b) of Central Sale Taxes Act,
1956 and the definition of “trader” in Black’s Law Dictionary, the learned
Single Judge concludes that the statutory scheme does not distinguish
between the auctioneer / the dealer on the one hand and the trader on the
other. According to the learned Single Judge, it is only the auctioneer or
the dealer as defined in the statute who can carry on the business of
cardamom.
7.As per the statutory scheme, the business of cardamom in the
first instance in any manner can be carried on only by a licensed
auctioneer or a licensed dealer and that no producer of cardamom shall
sell his produce otherwise than through a licensed auctioneer or a
licensed dealer. In other words, the primary sales of cardamom should be
done only through a licensed auctioneer by procuring the same from the
growers directly. The dealers are also similarly entitled to do so ;
however, the cardamom so procured could be sold only in the auction
centres which are situated at Puttady and Bodinayakanur by submitting
18/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
the procured cardamom for auction through the licensed auctioneers.
Paragraph No.39 of the order of the learned Single Judge reads as
follows:-
“39. It is only for these licensed dealers the trade of the
procured cardamom across the country is open, with the strength
of the sale certificate issued by the Spices Board. Any trader
purchasing any consignment of spices from these licensed dealer
should be accompanied with the sales certificate issued by the
Spices Board to the registered dealer concerned from whom the
trader has purchased cardamom. The trader in turn cannot
conduct secondary trade ‘by conducting secondary e-auction’,
since the same is contrary to the procedure mandated under Rule
3 of Rules, 1987, which provides for the conditions to carry on
business in cardamom. Rule 3 specifically prohibits anyone other
than a licensed auctioneer or licensed dealer of cardamom who
has obtained a license from the Spices Board in Form B in terms
of Rule 4 of Rules, 1987, to carry on business as ‘auctioneer’ or
‘dealer’ of cardamom.”
8.We fully approve the aforesaid conclusions of the learned Single
Judge. But we are unable to uphold the other conclusions arrived at by
the learned Single Judge. The learned Judge proceeds to hold that a
trader cannot conduct a secondary trade by conducting secondary
19/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025e-auction as it would be contrary to the procedure mandated under Rule 3
of the Cardamom (Licensing and Marketing) Rules, 1987. According to
the learned Judge, the right to conduct auction of cardamom in any form
is permitted only for the licensed auctioneers under 1987 Rules and that
no other private individual can conduct auction in any form. The reason
for arriving at such a conclusion is that the statute is silent on the right of
the traders who are engaged in secondary sales of cardamom. Invoking
the principle of casus omissus, the learned Judge held that the Court
cannot read anything into a statute apart from what is already there and
that the legislative casus omissus cannot be filled by judicial
interpretation. In this view of the matter, the writ petitions came to be
allowed.
9.The appellant in WA(MD)No.1594 of 2025 filed an affidavit of
undertaking. Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the undertaking affidavit read as
follows:-
“4.I respectfully submit that in view of the above writ
appeal, I would like to make the following undertaking in
respect of the business affairs of this appellant:-
20/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025A) The Appellant’s Firm will not conduct auction of
Cardamom through its platform at any point of time.
B) The Cardamom purchased or displayed in the
appellant’s trade fair would be purchased only from a
registered dealer under spice board.
C) All the Cardamom products in the trade fair
conducted by this appellant would be purchased only through
GST Bills. Hence, the origin of the same, can be traced.
D) This appellant would not purchase any
Cardamom ????product directly from the growers or
producers.
E) The product displayed or purchased in the appellant s
trade fair is only Cardamom, which was purchased by a
registered dealer at an E-Auction conducted by the Spices
Board or purchased from a registered dealer who purchased
the cardamom from another registered dealer who in turn
purchased it at an e auction conducted by the Spices board.
F) In short, all cardamom bought and sold in our trade
fair is originally sourced by licensed dealers of the Spices
board as per the provisions of Act and Rules prescribed
G) The Appellant’s Firm only conducts a trade fair,
wherein, the purchased products are displayed for trade
through our platform and the sales bills are also issued through
the petitioner’s firm. Hence, the activity of the petitioner is not
an auction.
5.I respectfully submit that as stated above, the appellant
does not deal or purchase any Cardamom from the growers
21/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
directly, hence, a question of applying restriction under Rule 3
of Cardamom (Licensing and Marketing) Rules, will not be
applicable in the appellant’s case.”
The appellant in WA(MD)No.2171 of 2025 filed the following affidavit
of undertaking :
“3. I respectfully submit that in view of the above writ appeal, I
would like to make the following undertaking in respect of the
business affairs of this appellant:-
A) The Appellant’s firm will only sell the Cardamom through digital
marketing and through its online platform but will not conduct
auction in the primary market.
B) The Cardamom purchased or displayed in the appellant’s trade
fair would be purchased only from a GST registered dealer.
C) All the Cardamom products in the trade fair conducted by this
appellant would be purchased only through GST Bills. Hence, the
origin of the same, can be traced.
D) This appellant would not purchase any Cardamom product
directly from the growers or producers.
E) The product displayed or purchased in the appellant’s trade fair
is only Cardamom, which was purchased by a registered dealer at
an E-Auction conducted by the Spices Board or purchased from a
registered dealer who purchased the cardamom from another22/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025registered dealer Who in turn purchased it at an e auction
conducted by the Spices board.
F) In short, all cardamom bought all sold in our trade fair is
originally sourced by licensed dealers of the Spices board as per
the provisions of GST Rules prescribed.
G) The appellant’s firm only conducts a trade fair, wherein, the
Purchased products are displayed for trade through our platform
and the sales bills (GST Bill) are also issued through the
petitioner’s firm. Hence, the activity of the petitioner is not an
auction.
4. I respectfully submit that as stated above, the appellant does not
deal or purchase any Cardamom from the growers directly, hence,
a question of applying restriction under Rule 3 of Cardamom
(Licensing and Marketing) Rules, will not be applicable in the
appellant’s case.”
10.We could have disposed of WA(MD)Nos.1594 & 2171 of 2025
by recording the stand of the appellants. The learned Single Judge had
only forbidden the conduct of auctions by the appellants and other
traders. When these appellants submit that they do not propose to
conduct auctions, they fall outside the prohibitive sweep of the direction
issued by the learned Single Judge. However, the third appellant did not
come forward to file a similar affidavit. He wanted to preserve his right
23/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
to conduct secondary auctions. The learned Senior Counsel also wanted
us to test the order of the learned Single Judge on merits. This is because
they felt that while the undertaking affidavits reflect the current stand, in
future, they may also like to hold e-auctions though at the secondary
level.
11.The question that calls for consideration in these writ appeals is
whether such secondary trading in whatever form is prohibited by the
Spices Board Act, 1986 and the Rules framed thereunder. The learned
Single Judge noted that while the terms “auctioneer” and “dealer” have
been defined in the statute, “trader” has not been defined. She, therefore,
concluded that only auctioneers and dealers as statutorily defined can
carry on the business in cardamom.
12.The definitions of the terms “auctioneer” and “dealer” have
already been extracted. License to auctioneers is issued in Form B 1.
License to dealers is issued in Form B 2. The auction report must be
submitted to the Spices Board in Form C. Even a cursory reading of the
aforementioned Rules and Forms would indicate that the Spices Board
Act, 1986 and the Rules framed thereunder are meant to regulate primary
24/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
trading in cardamom alone. The very purpose of issuing dealer license in
Form B 2 is to authorise purchase cardamom either in auction or directly
from producer. The first condition attached to the license reads that the
dealer shall not purchase cardamom from an estate owner who has not
registered his estate from an auctioneer who has not been licensed by the
Board. Likewise, the first condition attached to an auctioneer’s license
talks about the transaction between the owner of the cardamom and the
auctioneer. Section 2(j) of the Act defines “owner” only in relation to
any land planted with cardamom plants. Section 8 of the Act deals with
registration of owners of cardamom estates. Section 2(l) and (m) define
a registered estate and registered owner. One can therefore safely
conclude that the statutory function of regulating the sale of cardamom
and stabilization of prices of cardamom envisaged under Section 7(2)(iv)
of the Act covers only the primary transactions involving the grower,
auctioneer and the dealer. In other words, the manufactures / growers of
cardamom can sell their produces only to auctioneers and dealers and
none else. The corollary is that the auctioneers and dealers are alone
permitted to deal directly with the growers. From the auctioneer, the
registered dealer alone can purchase and none else.
25/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
13.A careful examination of the statutory scheme indicates that
there are only two prohibitory provisions. Section 11 of the Act states
that no person shall commence or carry on the business of export of any
spice except under and in accordance with the certificate referred to in
Section 12. Rule 3 also prohibits the producer of cardamom to sell his
produce otherwise than through a licensed auctioneer or dealer. Article
19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all citizens the right to
carry on any trade or business. This is a fundamental right. It cannot be
infringed lightly. When the statutory prohibition is set out only in
Section 11 and Rule 3(2), it would not be open to the court to expand its
scope and sweep. Rule 4 states that any person desiring to carry on
business as auctioneer or dealer have to be licensed. As already
mentioned, both these terms have been defined. The implication is that
those who are not desirous of carrying on business as auctioneer or dealer
need not obtain license from the Spices Board. The rule talks only about
persons desiring to carry on business as auctioneer or dealer. It does not
talk of persons desiring to carry on business in cardamom. From this we
can infer that the legislative intent was only to license these two
categories ie., dealers and auctioneers and not every other person.
26/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
14.The learned Judge opens her analysis with the statement that the
Spices Board grant licenses to traders engaged in cardamom and spices.
It is not so. The Spices Board, as the rule position obtains as of now,
issues licenses only to auctioneers and dealers as defined in the Rules. A
dealer is also a trader but not all traders are dealers. Not all traders are
required to obtain licenses from the Spices Board. Only if statute requires
taking of license, one has to take license and not otherwise.
15.Any prohibitory clause impinging on the fundamental right to
carry on trade or business has to be strictly construed. We are more than
satisfied that the stringent regulation as well as prohibition set out in the
Act and the Rules framed thereunder are confined only to the primary
transactions involving the grower, auctioneer and the dealer. From the
grower, the auctioneer can purchase. A registered dealer can also
purchase from a grower. But the registered dealer cannot sell it directly
to third parties upon purchase from the grower. He can sell it only to an
auctioneer. But after purchase from the auctioneer, he can sell it to
anyone else. The auctioneer can purchase from the grower or from a
27/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
registered dealer. He can sell only to a registered dealer. The grower can
sell only to an auctioneer or a registered dealer. The following flow chart
will clarify the position:-
The statutory regime that obtains as of now is conspicuously silent on
the transactions that take place after third parties (other than auctioneers)
purchase from the dealers. This silence has been misread by the learned
Single Judge as casus omissus and it is this misreading that has led to the
issuance of the impugned directions prohibiting secondary sales and
auctions. In fact, the prayer in the writ petition is only for banning e-
auction sales. The writ petitioners have not assailed secondary sales in
its generic sense. We thus hold that banning secondary sales is beyond
the scope of the writ proceedings.
28/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
16.Cardamom is an important spice. The learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the appellants submitted that if the impugned directions are
not set aside, even sale of a few grams of cardamom by the local grocery
shop would become illegal. The parliament did not enact the Spices
Board Act, 1986 to cover every aspect of business in cardamom. The
Spices Board Act, 1986 and the Rules framed thereunder do not contain
any prohibitory provision pertaining to the business in cardamom once it
has passed from the hands of the dealer.
17.The learned Single Judge in our view had erroneously invoked
the doctrine of casus omissus. It is well settled that Courts should not
readily presume casus omissus in a statute. The learned Judge rightly
notes that in the statute, there is no clause to regulate secondary trading
and that this was a case of casus omissus. The learned Judge thereafter
proceeds to hold that the casus omissus should not be supplied by
judicial legislation to justify the trade fairs organized by the appellants.
In our respectful view, this approach suffers from an inherent
contradiction. What has been deliberately and consciously left over by
29/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
the legislature cannot be supplied by the Courts. The result of the
direction given by the learned Single Judge is that activities not
prohibited by the statute stand banned by a judicial fiat.
18.The Spices Board also laments that the private entities in the
pretext of organizing trade fairs, engage in unauthorised cardamom
trading which is illegal. We do not find any justification in the stand of
the Spices Board. What is prohibited by law alone can be illegal. What
is not prohibited can never be illegal. Section 16(1) of the Act empowers
the Central Government to fix the maximum price or the minimum price
that may be charged by a wholesale or retail cardamom dealer for the
Indian market and the maximum quantity which may in one transaction
be sold to any person. Section 16(2) states that an order made under
Section 16(1) may provide for requiring persons engaged in the
production, supply or distribution of, or trade and commerce in,
cardamom to maintain and produce for inspection such books, accounts
and records relating to their business and to furnish such information
relating thereto as may be specified in the order. Thus, this provision only
talks about regulating secondary trade in cardamom. This cannot be
30/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
expanded to mean that holding of trade fairs etc. during secondary
trading stand prohibited. In fact, our attention has not been to any order
under Section 16(1) of the Act dealing with secondary trade.
19.For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the order of the learned
Single Judge and allow these writ appeals. No costs.
(G.R.S. J.,) & (K.R.S. J.,)
29.08.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias/SKM
To
1.The Spices Board, (Ministry of Commerce and
Industry Govt. of India) Rep. by its Secretary,
Sugandga Bhavan, NH Bypass, PB No.2277
Palarivattom Post, Kochi, Kerala.
2.The Director (Marketing), Spices Board,
Sugandga Bhavan, NH Bypass, PB No.2277
Palarivattom Post, Kochi, Kerala.
3.The Assistant Director (Marketing),
Spices Board, Kurangani Road,
Bodinayakanur, Theni District.
31/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
and
K.RAJASEKAR, J.
ias/SKM
Pre-Delivery Common Judgment in
W.A.(MD)Nos.1594, 1722 and 2171 of 2025
29.08.2025
32/32
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 05:37:44 pm )
[ad_1]
Source link