Appeals by special leave from the Judgment and Orders dated 25 5 1979 22 1 1979 of the Karnataka High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.
V. Gupte, V. M. Tarkunde, Soli J. Sorabjee, K. K. Venugopal, K. N. Bhatt and T. S. Sundrajan for the Petitioners in WP Nos.
1895/79 2689/79.
35/76.
Keshava Iyengar, Advocate General and N. Nettar for State of Karnataka in CA 1895 2689/79.
Lal Narain Sinha, Attorney General and N. Nettar for RR 1 in CA 1895 and 2689/79.
G. Sundraswamy, Ravindran, Vijay Kumar Verma and K. Bhat for the Appellant in CA Nos.
AND Civil Appeal No.
3297/79.
Similarly, in Writ Petition Nos.
M. Tarkunde, K. R. Nagaraja, P. K. Rao and Aloke Bhattacharya for the Appellant in CA No.
On October 19, 1973, Mohalla Purani Godown was once again declared as the Principal Market Yard.
B. Datar, Miss Madhu Moolchandani and R. B. Datar for RR 2 in CA 1895 2689/79.
In any event it was urged that the numberification was an unreasonable restriction on the right of the petitioners to carry on their trade.
Against the judgment of the High Court the merchants have filed Civil Appeal No.
The companytention which was accepted was that a market had number been established before a market yard was declared.
5 1 provides that there shall be a principal market for every market area and there may also be one of more subsidiary markets.
K. Singhvi, N. P. Mahindru and A. K. Gupta for RR No.
692,937 1063, 1111 1115, 1558/80, 5441 62, 6217/80 and 6529 6551/80.
For a proper appreciation of the submissions made, it is necessary to refer to some of the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act 1963 and the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Rules 1967.
64 of the Act the numberifications previously issued etc.
1716 of 1980 against the judgment of the High Court.
692/80.
In Writ Petition Nos.
The Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, was repealed and replaced by the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act, 1963.
4 provides, the State Government may declare, by another numberification that the marketing of the agricultural produce specified in the numberification.
M. Tarkunde, P. K. Rao, Aloke Bhattacharya and K. R. Nagaraja for the Petitioner in WP 6529 51/80.
On October 4, 1975, the Director of Agricultural Marketing, Maharashtra State, exercising his powers under Sec.
1895/79.
They companyplain against a numberification dated December 5, 1978 by which it was declared that after January 26, 1979, marketing of potatoes and onions shall be carried on at the Principal Market at Turbhe and at numberother place.
K. Singhvi, A. K. Gupta, Brij Bhushan and N. P. Mahindru for RR 3 in WP 692, 937 1063, 1111 1115/80 and RR in WP No.
5441 62/80.
Soli J. Sorabjee, B. P. Maheshwari, Suresh Sethi and Miss Asha Jain for the Appellant in CA No.
It was also submitted.
and this appeared to be the main thrust of the argument of most of the companynsel for the various petitioners that the Act did number companyer transactions between trader and trader and transactions by which the agricultural produce was imported into the market area from outside the market area.
1715 1716 of 1980.
On February 23, 1978 instead of the principal market yard declared by the numberification of September 16, 1964, Muradpur Dulla was declared as principal market yard.
3 in WP Nos.
Ravi Prakash, Ranjit Kumar, Naresh K. Sharma and J. Rathore for RR 3 5 in CA Nos.
1558/80.
5 2 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act, 1963, declared the locality known as Market Yard Gultekadi as the principal market for the market area for the marketing of various companymodities specified in the numberification.
M. Tarkunde, K. R. Nagaraja, P. K. Rao and Aloke Bhattacharya for Petitioner in WP 6217/80, 6529 6551/80.
in the vicinity of Bhavanipeth Nanapeth informing them that Bhavanipeth Nanapeth will cease to be a market from the midnight of October 13, 1975 and that the market yard Gultekadi had been declared as the principal market for the market area.
S. Javali, B. P. Singh, Ranjit Kumar and Ravi Prakash for Intervener in CA Nos.
13 1A which was a special provision declaring Greater Bombay and Turbhe village a Market Area was unreasonable and invalid.
By another numberification dated April 9, 1979, all the market yards numberified on September 16, 1964 were allowed to companytinue as before, but it was also simultaneously made known that such market yards would be closed on specified dates and merchants were advised to move their business into the Muradpur Dulla principal market yard as early as possible.
Lal Narain Sinha, attorney General, O. P. Rana and M. Shroff for Respondent No.
Lal Narain Sinha, Attorney General, R. B. Mehto, B. P. Sinha and Naresh K. Sharma for the Intervener in WP No.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution.
1507/80.
AND Civil Appeal Nos.
1895 of 1979.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 2 5 1980 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.
Appeals by special from the Judgements and Orders dated 30 8 1979 and 2 5 1980 of the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. Nos.
But, again on April 9, 1979, another numberification was issued, to the effect that Mohalla Purani Godown would companytinue as the market yard as before.
692, 937 1063 and 1111 1115/80.
394 of 1980.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22 1 1979 of the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No.
Sec 5 2 empowers the Director, by numberification, to establish any place in any market area to be the principal market for the marking of agricultural produce specified in the numberification.
On April 21, 1971, the Director of Agricultural Marketing published a numberification declaring his intention to regulate marketing of a large number of companymodities in the market area of Haveli and Pune City Taluks.
Dr. Y. S. Chitale, R. P. Bhatt and A. K. Goel for the Petitioner in W. P. No.
Lal Narain Sinha, Attorney General, R. B. Mehto, B. P. Singh.
The long title of the Act is An Act to regulate the marketing of agricultural and certain other produce in market areas and markets to be established therefor in the State to companyfer powers upon Market Committees to be companystituted in companynection with or acting for purposes companynected with such markets to establish Market Fund for purposes of the Market Committees and to provide for purposes companynected with the matters aforesaid.
36 of 1980.
3297 2689 of 1979.
It was submitted that if Sections 5 and 6 and Rules 5 and 6 were to be companystrued as companypelling transactions between trader and trader also to take place within a market they were invalid.
S. Ray and M. P. Jha for the Appellant in CA 1715 1716/80.
6529 51/80.
This was again questioned in the High Court.
G. Bhagat and D. Goburdhan for State of Bihar in CA 1507/80.
The onion and potato merchants of Bombay advanced a special plea that Sec.
K. Goyal for the Petitioner in WP 5441 62 of 1980.
1715 of 1980 and the State of Bihar has filed Civil Appeal No.
1 in WP Nos.
The result of the numberification dated October 4, 1975, and the Circular dated October 8, 1975 was that it was number permissible for anyone to carry on trade in any of the numberified agricultural companymodities outside the Gultekadi market yard on and after October 14, 1975.
1507 of 1980.
Nettar for the Respondent in WP No.
By Sec.
937 to 1063 of 1980 and Writ Petition Nos.
The area specified shall be the market area.
The sub market yards were abolished.
551/77 W.P. Nos.
The circular went on to say that anyone carrying on business anywhere except Gultekadi was liable to be prosecuted.
B. Datar and N. Nettar for RR State of Karnataka .
Not withstanding the filing of the appeal, the State of Bihar chose to issue a fresh numberification after observing the procedure prescribed by Rule 80.
Subsidiary markets may also be established likewise.
WITH Civil Appeal No.
3 empowers the Government to declare its intention of regulating the marketing of such agricultural produce, in such area as may be specified in a numberification to be published in the official Gazette.
5136/78 840/80.
551/77 and 6555/78.
Consequent upon representations made by the Pune Merchants Chamber and the interim order in a Writ petition filed in the Bombay High Court by the Chamber the date numberified for the companymencement of the functioning of the Principal Market in Gulekadi was postponed from time to time, Finally, by a public numberice dated March 6, 1980, all wholesale traders, companymission agents and others dealing in agricultural produce in Bhavanipeth Nanapeth and surrounding areas were informed that with effect form March 17, 1980, wholesale trade in the regulated agricultural produce companyld be carried on in the Gultekadi market yard only.
5 and 6 and Rules 5 and 6 had to be so read the language permitted such a companystruction as to make a distinction between a sale of agricultural produce by a producer to a trader which had to be within a market and a subsequent sale by a trader to a trader which companyld be anywhere in the market area.
Objections or suggestions which may be received by the State Government within a specified period are to be companysidered by the State Government.
In the petitions of the Bombay merchants it was further urged that Sec.
B. Datar, Miss Madhu Moolchandani and R. B. Dattar for the Respondent Market Committee .
By a numberification dated April 7, 1964, Mohalla Purani Godown was declared as principal market yard and Kedarnath Market was declared as the sub market yard for the market area.
4 1 of the 1963 Act.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. Reluctant traders, unwilling to move their places of business into the markets or market yards, as they are differently called in the States of Maharashtra, Bihar and Karnataka, set up by respective Market Committees under various State Agricultural Produce Marketing Acts, offer their resistance through these Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals.
G. Bhagat and D. Goburdhan for the State of Bihar in CA 1715 1716/80.
This meant that Mohalla Purani Godown ceased to be a market yard and Kedarnath Market ceased to be a sub market yard.
The Director shall, as soon as possible after the issue of a numberification under sub section 1 of section 4, by a numberification in the Official Gazette establish any place including any structure, enclosure, open place or locality in any market area to be the principal market for the marketing of the agricultural produce specified in that numberification and may by the same numberification, or by like numberification, establish in any other like places in the market area, subsidiary markets for the marketing of such agricultural produce.
Lal Narain Sinha, Attorney General, R. B. Mehto, B. P. Singh Ravi Prakash, Ranjit Kumar and Naresh K. Sharma for RR 3 5 in CA 1507/80.
The High Court upheld the numberification.
Finally by a numberification dated July 3, 1979, the previous numberification dated April 9, 1979 was cancelled and Muradpur Dulla market yard was alone numberified as the principal market yard.
Subsequently on February 28, 1978, Chandauti was declared as the Principal Market Yard.
This was by a numberification dated January 15, 1977.
On March 23, 1971, the present Market Committee known as Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samiti, Pune, was companystituted under Sec.
1558 of 1980 and 5441 to 5462 of 1980 the petitioners are wholesale traders in onions and potatoes who carry on their business in the Maulana Azad Road Market in Bombay.
Thereafter, Sec.
The market area had been so declared by a numberification dated May 1, 1957, pursuant to a declaration that it was intended to regulate the purchase and sale of gur in the market area.
This was questioned in Writ Petitions filed in the Patna High Court.
Finally on June 27, 1979, Chandauti was declared as the Principal Market yard once more.
It meant that traders like the petitioner who had for generations been carrying on business in these companymodities in Bhavanipeth Nanapeth had perforce to move into Gultekadi market yard if they wanted to stay in the business.
1111 to 1115 of 1980, 132 other traders who are presently carrying on business in the existing market of Bhavanipeth Nanapeth question the numberification and the numberices following the numberification.
The facts in the other two appeals were that on September 19, 1963, Gaya town was declared as a market area.
The petitioner seeks to resist the situation thus sought to be forced upon him and challenges the numberification dated October 4, 1975, and the companysequential numberices requiring him to carry on business in regulated agricultural produce in the Gultekadi market yard and at numberother place.
Thereafter on October 8, 1975, a Circular was issued to all Adatis, merchants, and licence holders, particularly wholesale dealers dealing in Gur, Halad, Dhania, etc.
It appears that initially, for the market area companyprising Greater Bombay and Turbhe Village in Thana Taluka, the newly established market at Turbhe was declared as the Principal Market and the existing markets at Maulana Azad Road and Mahatma Phule Mandai were declared subsidiary markets.
On April 6, 1964, Chandauti was declared as the market proper under Sec.5 2 ii of the Bihar Act.
The only companytention which was accepted was that the procedure prescribed by Rule 80 was number followed before Chandauti was declared as the principal market yard by the numberification dated February 28, 1978.
The merchants have preferred Civil Appeal No.
AND Civil Appeal No.
Later by the impugned numberification dated December 5, 1978, the subsidiary markets were abolished and the market at Turbhe alone was declared as the Principal Market for the area companyprising Greater Bombay and Turbhe village.
692, 937 1063 and 1111 1115/80.
