SREENIVASA GENERAL TRADERS & ORS. ETC. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1983] 3 S.C.R. 843 · Decided: 06-09-1983 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 8 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

843 
SREENIVASA GENERAL TRADERS & ORS. ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. ETC. 
September 6, 1983 
[A.P. SEN, E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND R.B. MISRA, JJ.J 
Andhra Pradesh (Ag;icu/tural Produce and Livestock) Market Act 1966-
' 
Sections 7(6), 12(1) scope of-Prohibiting sale/purchase of agricultural produce 
outside the market-Whether encroaches upon citizen's· right under Art. 19(l)(g)--
Levy of market fee on transactions from one's business· premises if invalid-Rule 
74(1)-Scope of. 
Tax and fee-Es;entia/ differences-What are. 
Jurisprudence-Decision of a Court-To what ext~nt an authority. 
The Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 
1966 was Cnacted to reguJatc.the purcha'se and sale of agricultural produce,. 
livestock and products of livestock ( compendioiisly referred to as agriCultriral 
produce), to establish n1arkets in connection .therewith, to eliminate iniddlemen. 
and to protect the producers in· such agricultural produce from exploitation 
aild to ensure them a fair price for their produce. 
The Act empowers the 
State Government to establish Market Committees. 
Section 7 prohibits the 
setting-up of any Place for the purchase, sale etc. of any riotified agricultural 
produce except in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted by the 
Market Co1nmiltee. Sub-seetion (6) of section 7 prohibits the purchase or sale 
of. any notified agricultUral produce outside the n1aket in the Dotified area, 
Section 12 empowers the State Governmenl to authorise the Market Com:. 
mittees to levy a fee on agricultural produce purchased or sold within the 
notified area. 
The market fee which in 1970 Was 25 paise for every ·hundred rupees of 
the aggregate amount for which the notified agricultural produce.was pui'chased 
or ~old was raised to 50 ~aise in 1972. It was eventualJy raised to Re. 1. 
It was contended on behalf.of the· petitioners that (i) s«::ctiou · 7(6) which ·~ 
totally prohibits the purchase and sale of any notified agricultural produce out· 
side the market in that area encroaches upon the right of the· citizen to carcy 
on trade or business and is repugnant to Article 19(l)(g) of the Constitution and 
is therefore void; (ii) levy of market fee under section· 12(1) on transactions 
effected by the petitioners from their business premises wliich are located in the 
notified market . area but outside the market proper is per se illegal and 
unconstitutional as such levy is not corelated to any services rendered to 
the1D,, 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
u 
844 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1983] 3 S.C.R. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : Having regard to the purpose and object of the IOJ1islation the 
· restrjction imposed by section 7(6) of the Act is reasonable re!!triction within 
the meaning of Atticle 19(6) of the Constitution. 
[865 A-Bl 
· . Marketing legislation which seeks to enable producers to eet a fair price 
for the commodities produced by them by eliminating middlemen and provid-
ing regulated markets, cannot be said to impose an unreasonable restriction 
on the citizen's right to do business unless it is clearly. established that the 
provisiops are too drastic to achieve the object for which the law was enacted. 
In order to .:m.ake such legislation effective it would be reasonable for the 
legislature to CO!Jtrol transactions betwren traders and also the sale within the 
market area of_ produce grown outside the market area. [859 D~F} 
The liberty of the invividual n1ust yield to the common good. There 
can be no protection of the rights 1hemselves unless there is a measure of 
Control and regulation of the ria:hts of each individual in the interest of all. 
[863 OJ 
In order to determine the reasonableness of a restriction the court must 
have regard to the nature and conditions prcvailina: in that trade. Section 7(6) 
was enacted for the very purpos: of controlling the business in aa:ricullural 
produce.by the establishment of reaulated markeis in connection therewith. 
Therefore the se-ction cannot be said to be arbitrary or of aa excessive natur• 
which is beyond what is required in the interests of th~ community. 
If the 
agricultllral produce is sold in the notified area the tranractions would be 
carried on under the supervision and control of the market committee. The 
produCers can get the best competitive prices and the transactions will be in 
ready cash. The producers do not have to pay the 1niddlemcn. 
The use of 
standard weights an

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