RAMAKRISHNA HARI HEGDE & ANR. versus MARKET COMMITTEE, SIRSI & ORS.

Citation: [1971] 3 S.C.R. 370 · Decided: 15-01-1971 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

370 
RAMAKRISHNA HARi HEGDE & ANR. 
v. 
MARKET COMMITTEE, SIRSI & ORS. 
January 15, 1971 
[S. M. S!KRI, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Bombay Agricultural Produce Market• Act (22 of 1939), as amended 
in 1954, ss. 4 and 4A-Notificalion changing Principal Market Yard-
Titne insuffir;ient for per.sons carrying on business to shift to new yard-
Notification, if violates their fundamental right to carry on business. 
Under the Bombay Agricultural Produce Mar1<ets Act, 1939 as amend-
·ed in 1954, a Market area is first declared unuer s. 4( 1), after which, 
under s. 4A, a Principal Market Yard and one or more sub-Market Yards 
may be constituted for the area. The effect of constituting the Market Area 
and Market Yard is that the purchase or sale of agricultural produce in 
any place in the area is prohibited except in the Principal and sub-Market 
Yards. 
Under s. 5 the State Government may establish a Market Com-
mittee fpr the market area. 
In .195 r, the town in which the appellants were carrying on business in 
agricultural produce w~s declared, along with ourrounding villages, as the 
Market Area. 
In 1954, after the Act was amended by the addition of 
s. 4A, the Government notified the area in which the appellants were carry-
ing on business as the Principal Market Yard of the Market area. On 5th 
January 1965, the Government issued a Notification by which land grant-
·ed to the Market Committee established under the Act for 
the 
Market 
Area, was declared to be the Principal Market Yard with effect from 15th 
January 1965. The appellants challenged the Notification, 
but the High 
Court dismissed their writ petition. 
In appeal to this Court: 
HELU : ( 1) The Government has the power to issue the Notification 
in public interest, but the prohibition on the appellants, implicit in the Noti-
fication, was unreasonable and to that extent violated the fundamental rights 
B 
c 
D 
E 
of the appellants to carry on their business, because, it was impossible for 
them to shift their business to the new Principal Market Yard within ten 
F 
days. [376 A-C, D-F] 
( 2) The Government could have dec:ared the area in which the appel-
lants were carrying on the business as a Sub-MarRet 
Yard and rectified 
the Notification, but this Court cannot assume the functions of the Govern-
ment and direct the Government to do so. [376 F-G] 
· 
( 3) Since the Market Committee had however agreed to grant a 'rea-
G 
sonable period of one and a half years time to the appellants to enable them 
to shift to the Principal Market Yard and to permit them to continue their 
business in the old Market Yard during that ~eriod, the Notification need 
can be struck down. [376 G-H, 377 Al 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1072 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
July 30. 1965 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No. 141 
of 1965. 
H 
f 
~y_
) 
• 
A 
B 
RAMAKRISHNA v. MARKET COMMITTEE 
371 
(Jagunnwhan Reddy, J.) 
V. M. Tarkunde and Naunit Lal, for the appellants. 
R. B. Datar, for respondent No. I. 
S. K. Dholakia and S. P. Nayar, for respondent No. 2. 
The J ud5ment of the Court was delivered by 
P. Jaganmoban Reddy, J. 
This 
Appeal 
is 
by 
Special 
Leave against the Judgment of the Mysore High Court dismissing 
the Writ Petition filed by the Appeallants and Respondent No. 3 
against Respondents 1 and 2, the Market Committee Sirsi and 
the State of Mysore respectively, by which they challenged the 
Notification of the Govt. of Mysore No. DPC 203 CMD 64(i) 
C 
dated 5th January 1965. The Town of Sirsi in the North Canara 
which was once part of the Bombay State is one of the leading 
markets for Areca, Cardimom and Pepper. The Appellants have 
been carrying on business in these 3 commodities on a large scale 
for many years in this town mainly in the localities comprising 
D 
E 
F 
Channapattan Galli, Basti Galli and Nadged Galli, while the Res-
pondent 3 who is a dealer in the said commodities was carrying 
on business in Nadged Galli. 
In the Channapattan Galli there 
are nearly 20 Commission Agents who own shops and goaowns 
who also deal in these commodities. It was stated that the three 
Ga!lis constitute the main market where wholesale business in the 
aforesaid commodities is being carried on for more than a cen-
tury. 
The Bombay Legislature had passed the Bombay Agricultural 
Produce Markets Act 1939 (Act XXII of 1939) and thereafter 
made rules under the Act known as Bombay Ag

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