MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN GULAM MOHAMMAD AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1962] 2 S.C.R. 659 · Decided: 02-05-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
659 
MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN GULAM MOHAMMAD 
AND ANOTHER 
v. 
THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, 
K. N. WANOHOO, K.C. DAs GUPTA and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.) 
Agricultural Produce Markets-Enactment for regulation of 
purchase and sale of such produce -Constitulion,1l validity-Vali-
dity of rules framed under the Act-Bombay Agricultural Produce 
Markets Act, I939 (Bom. 22 of 1939), ss. 4, 4A, 5, 5A, 5AA, II, 
29, rr. 53, 64, 65, 66, 67·-Constitution of India, Arts. I9(l)(g), 
19(6). 
. 
The Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, was 
enacted by the Bombay Legislature to provide for the better 
regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce in the 
State of Bombay and the establishment of markets for such 
produce. Under the provisions of the Act power was given to 
the commissioner by notification to declare certain areas as 
market areas as a result of which such areas could not thereafter 
be used for the purchase or sale of any agricultural produce 
specified in the notification, except under a licence. 
Markets 
were to be established and market committees constituted 
with power to grant licences for operation in the market. 
By 
s. II a market committee may, subject to the provisions of the 
Rules and subject to such maxima as may be prescribed, levy 
fees on the agricultural produce bought and sold by licencees in 
the market area. Section 2g enabled the State Government by 
notification in the official Gazette to add to, an1end or cancel 
any of the items of agricultural produce specified in the Sche-
dule to the Act. The petitioners challenged the validity of the 
Act and the rules framed thereunder, and in particular ss. 4, 
4A, 5, 5A. and 5AA which provided for the declaration of a 
market area and the establishment of a market, as unconstitu-
tional on the ground that they placed unreasonable restrictions 
on their right to carry on trade in agricultural produce and 
thus infringed their fundamental right guaranteed under Art. 
19(r)(g) of the Constitution of India. They also attacked the 
validity of ss. II and 29 and rr. 53, 64, 65, 66 and 67. 
Held: (1) that ss. 4, 4A, 5, 5A and 5AA of the Act are con-
stitutional and intra vires and do not impose unreasonable 
restrictions on the right to carry on trade in the agricultural 
produce regulated under the Act. 
M. C. V. S. Arnnachala Nadar v. The State of Madras, [1959] 
Supp. 1 S.C.R. 92, followed. 
May 2. 
660 
SUPREME COURT R.EPORTS 
[1962] 
196 1 
(2) that the fee provided by s. n though calculated on 
-·-
the amount of produce bought and sold, is not in the nature of 
Gulam Mohammad sales tax as it is only a levy charged for services rendered by 
v. 
the market committee in connection with the enforcement of 
Stale of Bombay the various provisions of the Act. Accordingly, s. II is valid. 
(3) that r. 53 in so far as it enables the market commit-
tee to fix any rates as it liked of the fees to be collected on 
agricultural produce bought and sold in the market area, is not 
valid, because under s. II unless the State Government fixes 
the maxima by rule it is not open to the committee to fix any 
fees at all. 
(4) that under s. 29, the power given to the State Govern-
ment to add to, or amend, or cancel any of the items of the 
agricultural produce specified in the Schedule in accordance 
with the local conditions prevailing in different parts of the 
State is only in pursuance of the legislative policy which is 
apparent on the face of the Act, and, therefore, the section is 
intra vires. 
The Edwards Mills Co. Ltd., Beawar v. State of Ajmer and 
Another, [1955] r S.C.H. 735, applied. 
(5) that r. 64 is merely a method of enforcing the regu-
latory provisions with respect to market yards and sub-market 
yards and is valid. 
(6) that rr. 65, 66 and 67, in so far as they authorise the 
market committee to grant a licence for doing business in any 
market area, go beyond the power conferred on the market com-
mittee by s. 5A, and are ultra vires. 
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: 
Petition No. 129 of 1959. 
Petition under Art. 82 of the Constitution of India 
for the enforcement of fundamental rights. 
R Ganapathy Iyer, J.B. Dadachanji, S. N. Andley, 
Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, for the petitioners. 
N. S. Bindra and R. H. Dhebar, for the respon-
dents. 
S. T. Desai, Trikamlal Patel and I. N. Shroff, for the 
Interveners. 
1961. May 2. 
The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by

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