JAIPUR ALOO AARATIYA SANGH AND ORS. versus STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 84 · Decided: 13-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
JAIPUR ALOO AARA TIYA SANGH AND ORS. 
STA TE OF RAJAS THAN AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 13, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Constitution uf India, 1950-Article 226-Public Interest litigation-
Problem of traffic congestion in city of Jaipur-Shifting of vegetable and fruit 
C marker-Direction by High Court to the State Government to take steps-
State Government proposing to issue Notification for shifting market--
Challenge to---Held: State permitted to issue appropriate notifications as are 
necessary for enforcement of its policy/ scheme in accordance with requirement 
of law-Agrirnlture Produce Market Act, 196/-Section 5(2). 
D 
The High Court of Rajasthan initiated suo motu proceedings in the 
nature of public interest litigation. In the said proceedings, several orders 
were passed by it from time to time in respect of traffic congestion in the city. 
On 14.8.2003, High Court directed a complete ban in regard to the entry of 
trucks in the town of Jaipur from 6 A.M. to 10.30 P.M. The same affected 
carriage of vegetables and fruits to the town of Jaipur. Aggrieved appellants 
E filed application in the matter. A Monitoring Committee was formed by the 
High Court, which submitted a report on 2.1.2004. The report drew attention 
of the High Court to various difficulties faced in the matter of traffic 
management in the city. The State of Rajasthan, Monitoring Committee and 
Appellant Associations agreed in principle that the trucks can be allowed on 
F a specified route between 11 A.M. to 12.30 PM. On 27.8.2004, the High Court 
directed the State Government to take effective steps for ironing out the 
difficulties and making it feasible for the Mandi to be shifted from the existing 
market yard situated at Lal Kothi to village Mohana within 8 months. 
Aggrieved appellants approached this Court. 
G 
Respondent-State contended that they had proposed to issue a 
notification by virtue of which the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee 
would establish a new market complex Sukia-Mohana Road (terminal point) 
as the principal market yard and denotify the earlier declared Lal Kothi 
Principal Market Yard and in view of the fact that the State is required to 
comply with the statutory provisions of the Act, it should be permitted to issue 
H 
M 
· 
,, ... 
,; 
,.. 
...... 
JAIPUR ALOO AARA TIYA SANGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 
85 
the proposed notification. 
On the other hand, appellants contended that the proposed notification 
does not fulfil the statutory requirements laid down under the said Act; that 
for issuance of such a notification due application of mind on the part of the 
A 
the State was imperative and not on the premise that the High Court had 
passed an order in that behalf and that the proposed market-yard at Mohana B 
was to be an additional principal market-yard, i.e., an additional market yard 
to the principal market-yard existing at Lal Kothi and not a substitute thereof. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court intended to deal with some of the maladies C 
which are existing in the town of Jaipur. The public interest involved in the 
matter is apparent [90-DI 
2. Although the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 
226 of the Constitution of India was entitled to pass appropriate orders in the 
said proceedings in public interest but where the requirements of law are to D 
be complied with; the court ordinarily should not dispense therewith. The 
Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 is a regulatory one. While 
regulating the trade in agricultural produces, the State can issue notification 
as a result whereof the trade by the dealers in vegetables or fruits may have 
to be carried within the premises notified therefor. The Act contemplates 
steps to be taken at various stages. When such steps are taken, the validity E 
of the action of the State will have to be judged keeping in view the nature of 
restraint and other relevant factors including the public interest involved. The 
State is permitted to issue appropriate notifications as are necessary for 
enforcement of its policy/ scheme in accordance with law. (90-E-G; 91-CI 
Jan Mohammad Noor Mohammad Begban v. State of Gujarat and Anr., 
(1966] l SCR 505, referred to. 
F 
3. Further, the members of Appellant Associations also agreed to shift 
their business to the shops allotted by the Market Committee in Block D. 
(91-H; 92-AJ G 
4. The State have spent crores of rupees in developing the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.