As per case facts, the State issued directions prohibiting agriculturists from selling their produce via Commission Agents, leading the Commission Agents to challenge these instructions. They contended that agriculturists were ... 'traders' under the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam, 1972, and therefore, they were legally entitled to facilitate such sales. The High Court sided with the Commission Agents, interpreting 'trader' broadly to include any person who buys or sells agricultural produce in their normal business, thus quashing the State's directions. The question arose whether an agriculturist, when selling their produce, falls within the definition of a 'trader' under Section 2(p) of the Act. Finally, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, ruling that an agriculturist's 'normal course of business' is cultivation, not buying or selling produce, which is crucial for defining a 'trader'. The Court highlighted that the Act's primary purpose is to safeguard farmers from middlemen, an objective that would be undermined if agriculturists were deemed traders. It also noted that traders and commission agents are expressly excluded from the 'agriculturist' definition, concluding that the High Court's interpretation was erroneous and setting aside its order.