JAN MOHAMMAD NOOR MOHAMMAD BEGBAN versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1966] 1 S.C.R. 505 · Decided: 18-08-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
A 
,. 
B 
c 
D 
• 
E 
' 
F 
G 
H 
505 
JAN MOHAMMAD NOOR MOHAMMAD BEGBAN 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER 
August 18, 1965 
[p. B. 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K.. N. 
WANCHOQ, 
M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH AND 5. M. SIB.RI. JJ.J 
Gujarat Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1964 (20 of 1964), ss. 
5, 6, 27(2) and 30 validity of-Whether violative of Arts. 14, 19 and 31 
of the Constitution-Rules under the Act, validity of. 
The Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act (22 of 1939) was 
enacted by the Provincial Legislature of Bombay and under the said Act 
the Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1941 were framed. By 
a notification issued under the Act, the whole area within a radius of 12 
miles of Ahmedabad City was declared in respect of certain agricultural 
produce, a market area for the purposes of the Act. A market yard and 
a market proper were also established for transactions in specified com-
modities. Under the Bombay Reorganisation Act 11 of 1960 which becami> 
operative as from May 1, 1960 two States-Maharashtra and Gujarat-
w1>re carved out of the territory of the former State of Bombay and the 
town of Ahmedabad was included within the State of Gujarat, but Bombay 
Act 22 of 1939 continued for the time being to remain applicable to the 
Gujarat region by virtue of s. 87 of Act 11 of 1960. Subsequently the· 
Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act 20 of 1964 wag passed but 
u!lder s. 64 of the Act the Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 
1941 remained in operation. 
The petitioner filed a petition under Art. 
32 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that Gujarat Act 20 of 
1964 \Vas illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional and violative of Arts. 14, 
19 and 31 of the Constitution of India and therefore null and void and 
that the rules framed thereunder (being the Bombay Agricultural Produce 
Market Rules, 1941) were also ultra vires, unconstitutional, illegal, nun 
and void. 
He prayed for a writ of mandamus forbidding the State of 
Gujarat from enforcing any of the provision9 
of the 
Act 
and 
the 
Rules. The following grounds were urged in support of the petition : (1) 
The powers conferred by ss. 5 and 6 of the Act were unfettered, wide 
and unguided and on that account the fundamental rights of the petitioner 
were infringed. (2) Retail sales which were not regulated by the provisions 
of the 1>arlier Act were sought to bo regulated by Gujarat Act 20 of 
1964. 
(3) Retail trade was completely prohibited by the Act and the 
prohibition amounted to an unreasonable restriction 
upon 
the 
funda· 
mental rights of the petitioner. ( 4) Section 30 of the Act gave wide powers 
to evict a person carrying on business without a licence from the market 
area. 
(5) Section 27(2) not having provided the maximum licence fee 
chargeable was illegal. ( 6) The market committee had no power to func-
tion as it was not constituted according to law. 
The period of office of 
the old committee which was to function for three years under Bombay 
Act 22 of 1939 had expired in 1961 but the committee continued to func-
tion and no fresh elections were held. 
(7) The rules pursuant to which 
the market committee was constituted and functioned not ba\ing been 
placed before the Legislature in the first meeting after the mies were 
promulgated under Act 22 of 1939 as required by that Act, the mies 
were unauthorised and so there was complete absence of machinery for 
enforcement of 1he Act. 
Despite the suspension Qf Art. 19 hy virtuo· 
506 
SUPRBMI! COURT 
REPORTS 
[1966) l S.C.R. 
of the operation of Art. 358 .of the Constitution in the state of Emergency 
A 
declared by the President m December 1902, the Coun decided the 
petition on merits because breach of fundamental rights under Arts. 14 
and 31 was also alleged. 
HELD: (i) The object of the Act being to ameliorate the condition of 
agriculturists and to do away with middlemen, who, it is a matter of 
.. 
common knowledge, make large and unconscionable profits out of the 
transactions carried out through them, declaration under s. 5, of intention 
B 
to regulate trade in agricullural produce in a specified area, after hearing 
the objecllons and sugges~ions of interested parties, cannot be regarded 
a& imposing unreasonable restrictions oa the right to carry on trade. The 
preamble to the Act and the scheme of the Act clearly indicate that the 
powers conferred upon the Director arc to be exercised for the purpose 
of regulating buying and selling of agricu

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