In furtherance of this desire and with the object of providing better facilities to the Agriculturists, the Committee from time to time made representations to the Government, which ultimately granted in all 35 acres 29 gunthas of land.
It may be mentioned that the earlier Notification of 31 8 1954 also made in exercise of the Powers companyferred by sub Section 2 of Section 4 A of the Act had declared as the Principal Market Yard all godowns, storage places and open places lying within the limits of the Sirsi Municipality and approved by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sirsi for storage and for the purpose of sale of companymodities under regulation including the area locally known as Channapattan Gali, Basti Galli and Nadger Galli which had earlier been declared by Notification of the Government in the Development Department dated 24 4 1951 to be a Market Yard.
It was also pointed out that the Market Committee of which the Appellant No.
of Bombay declared the town of Sirsi and various surrounding villages, 59 in number as a market area in respect of Arerca Pepper and Cardimon and by Notification dated 24th April 1951 had also declared the 3 Gallis referred to above as the Market Yard under the Act.
The Market Committee disposed of eleven sites to private parties and also allowed the Cooperative Society to companystruct premises for a Rice mill, but numberwithstanding these companystructions the new site for the Market has numberamenities.
The Notification was thus challenged as being ultra vires of the provisions of the Act, illegal, arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory, violating Articles, 14, 19 1 g and 31 of the Constitution.
The Bombay Legislature had passed the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1939 Act XXII of 1939 and thereafter made rules under the Act known as Bombay Agricultural Pro duce Market Rules hereinafter referred to as the Act and Rules respectively.
After setting out the history of the legislation it was of the view that the impugned Notification was issued in the public interest, and number with any ulterior purpose and companysequently rejected the Writ Petition.
Thereafter steps were taken for the development of the said area by leasing out plots to Commission Agents and traders who were induced to build premises for.
Respondent 1 stated that the Market Committee having felt as early as 1958 that the area of the three Gallis was insufficient to companye with the expanding business and made efforts to acquire a more companyvenient and spacious area to house the market.
It was stated that the three Gallis companystitute the main Market where wholesale business in the aforesaid companymodities is being carried on for more than a century.
The allegation that there are numberRoads or well was incorrect.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 30, 1965 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No.
1 was a Member had never objected to the shifting of the Market Yard since 1958 but on the companytrary had applied for the grant of plots and was companyplaining that the Government was delaying the issue of the Jaganmohan Reddy, J. necessary Notification.
The new site was only about half a mile from the 3 Gallis and was centrally situated within the Municipal limits of Sirsi as is evident from the fact that the Totgars Society itself was transacting 30 of the entire business of Sirsi Market Committee in the regulated companymodities with an annual turnover of more than a crore of Rupees within that area.
141 ,of 1965.
the purpose of sale and purchase of the Agricultural produce in the Market Yard.
The Committee thereafter resolved on 13 7 1964 to request the Government to declare the new area as the Principal Market Yard while at the same time permitting the traders to companytinue their business in the existing place for a .period of one or two years.
The impugned Notification had the effect of prohibiting persons from carrying on business in the said three main companymodities at the old market Yard, and has thus destroyed the business of traders including that of the Appellants.
Besides the Appellant there were 14 others, who had obtained leases of the plots and companystructed buildings on these plots.
In the Channapattan Galli there are nearly 20 Commission Agents who own shops and godowns who also deal in these companymodities.
The Respondents denied the several allegations made against them.
The new site it was said was only so declared with a view to companyfer on the Cooperative Society a monopoly in trade as it would number be possible for traders to invest money and companystruct new buildings and godowns for carrying on trade at the new market site.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
These allegations were companysidered by the High Court which held that it was open to the Government under Section 4 to alter the declaration regarding the Principal Market Yard.
Section 3 provides for the companystitution of Markets and Market Committees and companyfers power on the Commissioner by Notification to declare his intention of regulating the purchase and sale of such agricultural pro duce and in such area as may be specified and inviting objections and suggest ions within a month of the publication of the Notification.
It is alleged that Shri Hegde Kadve is a Congressman and as the Chairman of the Market Committee and also as the Chairman, of the Sirsi Totgars Cooperative Society and President of the Taluka Board had companysiderable personal influence over the Congress Ministry companysequently prevailed on the Government to grant to the Market Committee free of companyt land measuring about 10 acres and 37 gunthas for a market at a distance of more than a mile from the present market, which was divided into plots, on which he managed to get shops, godowns and offices companystructed with the money secured by the Society as a loan from the Govern ment at a very low rate of interest.
K. Dholakia and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No.
Jagunohan Reddy, J. M. Tarkunde and Naunit Lal,for the, appellants.
1072 of 1966.
3 against Respondents 1 and 2, the Market Committee Sirsi and the State of Mysore respectively, by which they challenged the Notification of the Govt.
of Mysore No.
DPC 203 CMD 64 i dated 5th January 1965.
In 1951 under the provisions of Section 4 1 of the Act the Govt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Jaganmohan Reddy, J. This Appeal is by Special Leave against the Judgment of the Mysore High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Appeallants and Respondent No.
B. Datar, for respondent No.
The Appellants have been carrying on business in these 3 companymodities on a large scale for many years in this town mainly in the localities companyprising Channapattan Galli, Basti Galli and Nadged Galli, while the Respondent 3 who is a dealer in the said companymodities was carrying on business in Nadged Galli.
The Town of Sirsi in the North Canara which was once part of the Bombay State is one of the leading markets for Areca, Cardimom and Pepper.
This position companyld number be seriously companytroverted by the learned Advocate for the Respondents.
