LexMOHAMMADBHAI KHUDABUX CHHIPA AND ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF. GUJARAT AND ANOTHER(AND CONNECTED. PETITIONS)
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
3 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
875
have been smuggled. The story subsequently men•
tioned by the appellant about his journey to Tata- ,
nagar which has been disbelieved brings into bold
belief the purpose which the appellant had in mind
in travelling without a ticket. After-all, when we
are dealing with a question as to whether the belief
in the mind of the officer who effected the seizure
was reasonable or not, we are not sitting in appeal
over the decision of the said officer.
All that we
can consider is whether there is ground which prima
facie justifies the said reasonable belief. That being
so, we do not think there is any substance in the
argument that the seizure was effected without a
reasonable belief and so is outside section l 78A.
In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed'
with costs.
·
Appeal di8missed.
MOHAMMADBHAI KHUDABUX CHHIPA
AND ANOTHER
1!.
THE STATE OF. GU,TARAT AND ANOTHER
(And connected. petitions)
(P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, A. K. SARKAR, K. N.
WANCHoo, K. C. DAS GuPI'A and N. RA.TA-
GOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.)
Agricu.lturaf Produc'! ]Jfarkets-Market committees-Levy
of fees-Notijication-Validzt1;-A clas8 and B class traders-
licences-Discrimination-Ruz;s. declared invalid-S1tbsequent
amendments to ena_ctment-Validzty of rules-Doctrine of eclipse
. -Saurashtra .Ag~icultural Produce Mai·kets (Gujarat Amend-
ment and Va~1dating Provisions) Ordinance, 1961 (1of1961)-
Bombay Agricultural Produce Market.s Ar;t, 7939 (Bam, 22 of
.793.'J),_
a.~ am,ended, 8s.5A, 11, 2.<J.B, rr. 58, Ct/, 65; G6, fJ7-
Constitutwn of India, Art.,.u, (.11)(1), 2G5,
Consequent on the decision in Gula.m Mohammad v, The
Jtate ~!Bombay, (1962] 2 S.C.R. 659, by 'l'hich rr. 53, 65, 611
1962
Pukhraj .
y,
D. R;Kohli
Qajendtagadkar J
1062
March 15.
1962
JI oh""'1!14d6ha;
Irhud•bwt Ohhipa
v.
Tht Stott of Gujorol
876 SUPREME COURT REPORT5 [1982] SUPP.
and 67, f~amed under the Bombay Agricultural
Produce
Markets Act, 1939, were held to he ultra. 11irr.s the provisions of
ss. 6A and 11 of the Act, the State nf Gnjarat amended r.5'.l
by a notification dated June 23, 1%1, and also promulgated
an Ordinance on June 26, 1901, by which amendments were
made in certain sections of the Act and a ne\v s 29 B was
inserted in the Act \'aJidating certain acts or things <lone
prior
to
the
promulgation of the
Ordinance.
The
petitioners, some of v.rhom \Vf!re \vholcsale dealers and the re.::t
retail dralr.rs, filed petitions under Art. 32 of thr. Constit11tion
of India for certain reliefs on the ground, (I) that the notifica·
tion dated June 23, 1961, was discriminatory and thus offended
Art. 14 because under it a rnarkct r.on1mittec could Jcvy fee.s
on agricultnral produce by different modes, (2) that s. 29-Jl
was insufficient to validate the defects noticed in the earlier
decision of the Supreme Court inasmuch a'i the rclevcnt pro-
visions of the Act and the Rules \Yerc not retrospectively
amended, (3) that undr.r the bye-laws .\class traders '''ere
charged
much
higher fees
than n class
traders
an<l,
further, B class traders , .. ·ere allo\ved to sell to consumers
any, ... ·hcre in the market area ,,·hercas 1\ class trader~ wrre not
so al1ov.·ed, and this amonntecl to dic;crimination, (4) that the
main provisions of tho Act had been amende<l by the Ordi-
nancr. and, ther~forc, the basis on ,,•hich the Suprr.mc Court
upheld the Act no lon!(er existed, (o) that rr. 65, 6G and fi7
which had been declared to be ultra vin• had neither been
rc·framcd no validated hy the Ordinance and, therefore, it \.\.·ac;;
not open to the market committr.e to issue licences 1111dt;r those
rules, and (6) thats. 29-ll was had in so far as it prevented
refund of her.nee fees collrcted before the Ordinance camr.
into force in view of Art.31 (I) of the Constitution.
Held, that: (I) the notification dated .June 23, 1961, by
itself could not Uc said to .Ue discriminatory because imposi.
tion of the f('C,; WiLS made only lJy the bye-Ja.vs framed by the
market committee under the power conferred on it by s. 11
subject to thr. maxima prescribed in the notification; if a byc-
la\Y prescrihcd rates of fees in two modes in such a \\'ay as to
result in discrirnination then such a byc·la\Y ,,·ould have to
be struck down.
(2) the fact that un<ler r.5'.{ the rnarket com1nittr.e might
levy fees by one metho<l on one agricuhural produce and liy
another method on another agricultural produce, \\Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.