KARAN SINGH AND ANR, versus STATE OF M.P & ORS.

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 530 · Decided: 15-04-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

530 
KARAN SINGH AND ANR, 
A 
v. 
STATE OF K,P, & ORS. 
APRIL 15, 1986 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.] 
B 
"Kachhi Adhat System", abolition of - Resolution dated 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
February 25, 
1981 adopted and passed by the Agricultural l 
Produce Market Committee in exercise of powers vested under~ .. 
section 32(5) 
of 
the 
Madhya 
Pradesh Krishi Upaj 
Mandi 
Adhiniyam, 1973, abolishing the "Kachhi Adhat System", whether 
violative of Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India. 
In exercise of its powers under sub-section (5) of ·( 
section 32 of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Kandi Adhiniyam, 
1973, the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Bhind passed 'T 
' 
a resolution on February 25, 1981 resolving to abolish the 
"Kachhi Adhat System" (which could not exist with a direction 
issued under section 32(5) of the Act) in the market area 
Bhind and submitted the same for approval of the Director of 
Marketing, which was accorded on December 4, 1981, The said 
resolution was however kept in abeyance till October 6, 1982 
on which date the Market Committee decided to bring into force -' 
its decision to abolish the system. 
A Civil Suit filed by one Ganga Ram for an injunction 
restraining the market Committee from giving effect to its 
resolution having been dismissed on October 31, 1985, the 
appellants filed a writ petition before the Gwalior Bench of ~ 
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging the abolition of 
the Kachhi Adhat System by issuance of the directive under -( 
section 32(5) of the Adhiniyam was violative of Article 
19(l)(g) of the Constitution. The Writ Petition having been 
dismissed, 
the appellants have moved this Special Leave 
Petition. 
Dismissing the petition, the court, 
HEIJ> : 
1.1 
The Legislature of the State of Madhya ~ 
Pradesh has enacted sub-section (5) of section 32 of the K.P. 
• 
Krishi Upaj Kandi Adhiniyam, 1973 in the· public interest in 
order to remedy the evil in the system of commission agency 
KARAN SINGH v. STATE 
531 
A 
(Kachhi Adhat System). Therefore, the abolition of the system 
""1'is in no way violative of Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution 
of India or unconstitutionsl. Article 19(l)(g) cannot be said 
to be violated if no commission agent shall act in the manner 
prohibited by section 32(5) of the Act or he cannot deduct 
any coimtission or delali from the sale proceeds payable to the 
B 
producer or that he cannot act both for the buyer as also for 
the seller. In prohibiting such practices Article 19(l)(g) of 
Jo. i..the Constitution cannot be said to be violated in any manner. 
Such restrictions being in the interests of the general public 
are protected by Article 19(6) of the Constitution. [536 B-E] 
1.2 The object of bringing the Act intcl force itself is 
'). that the comaission agents should not have any opportunity to 
, exploit their dominant position and to make illegal and 
_,excessive gain at the cost of the producers. The Act has been 
passed to protect innocent agriculturists who bring their 
produce to the market areas from the clutches of the 
COlllllll.ssion agents. [534 E-F] 
1.3 Under section 32(5) of the M.P. Krishi Upaj Mandi 
Adhiniyam, 1973 the Market CoDlllittee is empowered with the 
prior approval of the Dirtector to pass a resolution directing 
c 
D 
11--(i) that no comaission agent or a broker or both shall act in 
any 
transaction between 
the producer seller or trader 
E 
purchaser on behalf of a producer-seller; (ii) that a 
commission 
agent 
shall not deduct 
any 
amount 
towards 
coma:l.ssion or dalali from the sale proceeds payable to the 
producer-seller; and (iii) that a coDDission agent shall not 
~ act on behalf of both the buyer and the seller, and thus to 
abol:ish the "Kachhi Adhat System." (534 A-C] 
F 
K.c.v.s. Arunachal.a Hadar etc. v. 'Die State of Madras & 
Ors., [1959] Supp. l S.C.R. 92, applied. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition 
(Civil) No. 3732 of 1986. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 2.1,86 of the High 
~--.Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench in M.P. No. 889 of 85. 
Shiv Dayal Srivastava, D.K. Kabara and Rajiv Dutta for 
the petitioners. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
532 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19861 2 s.c.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VENKATARAMIAll, J. This is a petition under Article 136 
of the Constitution of India praying for special leave to file 
an appeal against the judgment dated January 2, 
1986 of the 
High Court of Madhya Prad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.