MD. MURTAZA & ORS. versus STATE OF ASSAM & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 10 S.C.R. 755 · Decided: 29-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, C.K. PRASAD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2011] 10 S.C.R. 755 
MD. MURTAZA & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 7517 of 2011) 
AUGUST 29, 2011 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(1)(g) and 19(6) -
Appellants and other wholesale vegetable and fruit vendors C 
engaged in selling vegetable and fruits at market in the city 
- Problem of traffic congestion, health and hygiene, pollution 
caused - Proposal to remove the appellants and others and 
shift them to a new market - Pursuant to the order by the High 
Court they had to vacate the possession of the premises -
D 
On appeal, held: Right to do business is a fundamental right 
guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) but is subject to reasonable 
restrictions under Article 19(6) -
Reasonableness of the 
restriction has to be determined in an objective manner and 
has to be seen from the point of view of the interest of the 
E. 
general public and not merely from the point of view of the 
persons upon whom the restrictions are imposed - Thus, the 
action of the Authorities cannot be faulted with - Shifting of 
the wholesale markets to the outskirts of the city or beyond 
was clearly reasonable - Public interest prevails over the 
F 
private interest - Executive is free to recognize degrees of 
harm - State must be left with wide latitude in devising ways 
and means of social control and Regulation, and the court 
should not, unless compelled by the law, encroach into this 
field -
Thus, the appellants and other wholesale traders 
should shift to the wholesale traders markets at the outskirts 
G 
or outside the city limits. 
Administrative law - Policy decision - Interference by the 
courts - Held: In the matters of policy, the courts have a 
755 
H 
756 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 10 S.C.R. 
A limited role and it should only interfere with the same when it 
is clearly illegal - On facts, the shifting of the wholesale 
markets to the outskirts of the city was not illegal - It was a 
salutary step for undoing a mischief - Thus, interference by 
the court not called for. 
8 
Friends Colony Development Committee vs. State of 
Orissa AIR 2005 SC 1: 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 818; Sales Tax 
Officer vs. Shree Durga Oil Mills (1998) 1 SCC 572,: 1997 (6) 
Suppl. SCR 488; Hanif Quareshi v. State of Bihar AIR 1958 
SC 731; State of Gujarat v. Shanti/al AIR 1969 SC 634: 1969 
C (3) SCR 341; Laxmi Khandsari v. State of UP. AIR 1981 SC 
873: 1981 ( 3 ) SCR 92; Divert v. State of Gujarat AIR 1986 
SC 1323: 1986 SCR 479; State of Madras v. Row 1952 SCR 
597; Peerless v. Reserve Bank AIR 1992 SC 1033: 1992 (1) 
SCR 406; Harakchand v. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 1453: 
D 1970 (1) SCR 479; Jyoti Pershad v. Union Territory of Delhi 
AIR 1961 SC 1602: 1962 SCR 125; Puthumma v. State of 
Kera/a AIR 1978 SC 771: 1978 (2) SCR 537; P.P. 
Enterprises v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1016: 1982 (3) 
SCR 510 - referred to. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
American Federation of Labour v. American Sash and 
Door Co. 335 US 538 (1949); New State Ice Co. v. 
Liebemann 285 U.S. 262 (1932) - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 818 Referred to 
Para 7 
1997 (6) Suppl. SCR 488 Referred to 
Para 8 
AIR 1958 SC 731 
Referred to 
Para 10, 13 
1969 (3) SCR 341 
Referred to 
Para 10 
1981 (3) SCR 92 
Referred to 
Para 10 
1986 SCR 479 
Referred to 
Para 10 
MD. MURTAZA & ORS. v. STATE OF ASSAM & ORS. 757 
1952 SCR 597 
Referred to 
Para 10 
A 
1992 (1) SCR 406 
Referred to 
Para 10 
1970 (1) SCR 479 
Referred to 
Para 10 
1962 SCR 125 
Referred to 
Para 11 
B 
1978 (2) SCR 537 
Referred to 
Para 11 
1982 (3) SCR 510 
Referred to 
Para 11 
1959 SCR 629 
Referred to 
Para 14 
c 
335 us 538 (1949) 
Referred to 
Para 16 
285 U.S. 262 (1932) 
Referred to 
Para 17 
CIVIL APPELLAE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7517 
of 2011. 
D 
From the Judgment & Order dated 28.04.2008 of the . 
Gauhati High Cburt in Writ Petition (C) No. 8081 of 2005. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 7518 of 2011. 
E 
Jayant Bhushan, Nagendra Rai, Vljay Hansaria, Pradip K. 
Ghosh, Parthiv K. Goswami, S. Hariharan,.Rajiv Mehta, Manish 
Goswami (for Map & Co.), T. Mahipal, Shantanu Sagar, Ranjan 
Kumar Pandey, Arun K. Sinha, Rakesh Singh, Sumit Sinha, 
F 
Avijit Roy, Deepika Ghatowar (for Coporate Law Group) for the 
appearing parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
2. These appeals have been filed against the impugned 
judgment and order dated 28.4.2008 passed by the Gauhati 
G 
H 
SUPREME COUR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.