LexRAMESHCHANDRA KACHARDAS PORWAL & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c E F G H 866 .. RAMESHCHANDRA KACHARDAS PORWAL & ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ETC. February 17, 1981 (R. S. PATHAK, 0. CH!NNAPPA REDDY A~D BAHARUL !SLAM, JJ.] Constitution of India 1950, Article 91 ( 1) (~)-Maharashtra Agricultural • P1oduce Marketing, (Regulation) Act 1963, SS : and 6 & Maharashtra Agri- cultural Produce Afarketing (Regulation) Rules 1963, Rule 5-Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Acl 1966, SS. 8, 10 and 11 'ii:,_. Bilzar Agricultural Produce Marketing Act 1960 Sections 5, 15-Trading in ~ specified agricultural produce-State Government--Setting up of new market area-Whether valid. Notification declaring that traditional trading acllvlty in old market area be shifted to new 1narket-Whether permissible-lnf1ingement of fundamental right to carry on trade-Whether arises. Adtninistrative law-Principles of natural justice-Markel yard disestablisfred at one place and established at another place-l>uty to invite and hear objec- tions-Whether arise3. The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act 1963 provides for the regulation of the marketing of agricultural produce in market area6 to be established therefor in the State, M<Lrket Committees to be consti- tuted for purposes connected with such markets, establishment of Market Fund for purposes of the Market Committees, and for purposes connected with these matters. Section 3 empowers the Government b:r a notification to be published in the Official Gazette, to declare its intention of regulating the marketing of :such agricultural produce in such areas as rna·y be specified and section 4 provides that the marketing of the agricultural produce shall be regulated. under lhe Act in the area specified in the notificatior. SeC'tlnn 5 ( J) provides a principal market for every market area and On( or more subsidiary markets, and section 5(2) empowers the Director to est:Lblish the principal market for the marketing of specified agricultural produce. Section 6 provides that no person shall use any place in the market area fo: the marketing of the declared agricultural produce or operate in the market ar~a or in any market therein as d trader, conunission agent, broker, processor, 'veighma-n, measurer, surveyor, warehouseman or in any other capacity in rela· ion to the marketing of the declared agricultural produce, on and after the date on which the declaration under section 4(1) is made. Section 6(2) prov.des that section 6(1) shall not apply to sales by retail, sales by an agriculturist who sells his own produce; and sales by a person to a-nother .for the latter's per >Onal consumption. TI1e Maharashtra Agricultural Prnduce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1963 were promulgated pursuant to the power confe1 Ted by section 60 of the Act. Rule 5 provides that no person shall market any declared agricullutal produce in any place in a market area other than the r rincipal market or subsidiary • ' f , • R. K. PORWAL v. MAHARASHTRA 867 n1arket established therein. The proviso to the rule enables the Director of A Aitark.eting to authorise a Market Committee to permit a trader or commission agent to market declared agricultural produce or to permit any other market functionary to operate at any place within the market area as may be nientioned by the· Market Comn1ittee in the licence granted to such trader. The petitioners who were wholesale traders in onions and potatoes in their writ petitions to the Supreme Court assailed the notices requiring them to carry on business in regulated agricultural produce in the market yard at the specified areas of the State, and at no other place, contending that : ( 1) the 1963 Act, B c D E F Jid not invest the Director of Marketing or the Market Committee with any po\ve'r, to co1npel a trader to transfer this activity from a previously existing ffiarket to a principal or subsidiary market established under section 5 of the Act (2) Rule 5 was inconsistent with section 6 and therefore ultra vires. (3) The Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 and the Agricultural Pro· duce Marketing Acts of other States such as Karnataka provided or indicated by an express provision tha.t once a market was established it was not permis- ~ible to market or trade outside the market and that the absence of such an expre'3s provisiou in the 1963 Act :-.howed that no such ban was coutemplatcd by the Act. ( 4) The
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.