S. R. Chari, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the petitioners in Petns.
226 to 229 of 61 .
226 to 229 and 233 of 1961.
They are a sequal to the judgment of this Court in Gulam Mohammed v. The State of Bombay 1 , which was delivered on May 2, 1961.
In companysequence, a direction was issued prohibiting the respondents in that petition from enforcing the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye laws against the petitioners in that petition till a market was established in law for that area under s.5A and from levying any fee under a. 11 till the maximum was prescribed under the Rules.
N. Shroff, for the petitioners in Petn, No.
March 15.
233 of 61 .
Further the Ordinance was promulgated on June 26, 1961, by which certain amendments were made in certain sections of the act and a new s. 29 B was inserted in the Act validating certain acts or things done prior to the promulgation of the 1 1962 2 S.C.R. 659, ordinance.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petitions Nos.
XXII of 1939, hereinafter referred to as the Act , as amended by the Bombay and Saurashtra Agricultural Produce Markets Gujarat amendment and validating Provisions Ordinance, No.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, N. S. Bindra and H. Dhebar, for respondent No.
226 to 229 are with respect to Ahmedabad while the fifth petition No.
The present petitions were filed thereafter.
Four of the petitions namely, Nos.
1 of 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance , and the Rules and the bye laws framed thereunder.
32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
Consequent on that decision, the State of Gujarat amended r. 53 by numberification dated June 23, 1961.
Petitions under Art.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J. These five petitions under Art.
1 in all the petitions.
32 of the companystitution, which are companynected and will be dealt with together, raise questions as to the companystitutionality of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, Bombay Act No.
