Market regulation under agricultural produce law upheld as reasonable, with no unconstitutional restraint on retail trade or committee continuity.

Sections 5 and 6 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964 were upheld because the Director's powers were confined to regulating buying and selling in specified areas for market establishment, removal of malpractices, and protection of agriculturists; the requirement of hearing objections and the Act's scheme prevented unguided discretion. The Act and rules were also held not to prohibit retail trade outright, but only to regulate market transactions, so the restraint on trade was not unconstitutional. Section 30, section 27(2), the continued constitution of the market committee, and the rules were likewise sustained, with eviction limited to market precincts, fee maxima left to rules, transitional continuation treated as valid, and legislative laying held directory.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether sections 5 and 6 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964 conferred unguided and arbitrary power so as to infringe fundamental rights; (ii) Whether the Act and the existing rules regulated or prohibited retail trade in agricultural produce beyond constitutional limits; (iii) Whether section 30, section 27(2), the constitution of the market committee, and the validity of the rules were unlawful on the grounds urged.

Issue (i): Whether sections 5 and 6 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964 conferred unguided and arbitrary power so as to infringe fundamental rights.

Analysis: The statutory scheme showed that the Director's powers were confined to regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce in specified areas for the object of establishing markets, eliminating malpractices, and protecting agriculturists. The power under section 5 to notify the intention to regulate, and under section 6 to declare market areas after considering objections and suggestions, was controlled by the preamble, the subject-matter of the Act, and the requirement of hearing interested persons. The provisions therefore operated as regulatory measures and did not amount to unfettered discretion.

Conclusion: The challenge to sections 5 and 6 failed and the provisions were upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the Act and the existing rules regulated or prohibited retail trade in agricultural produce beyond constitutional limits.

Analysis: Reading the Act with the continuing rules and bye-laws, the scheme was found to regulate market transactions in the market area but not to impose a prohibition on retail sales as such. The statutory language, the existing rules, and the bye-laws indicated that retail transactions were not brought within the licensing and fee regime in the manner suggested. The regulatory provisions were therefore not treated as an unreasonable restraint on the right to trade.

Conclusion: The contention that retail trade was prohibited or unlawfully regulated was rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether section 30, section 27(2), the constitution of the market committee, and the validity of the rules were unlawful on the grounds urged.

Analysis: Section 30 was construed as authorising eviction only from the market precincts for operating without a licence and not as empowering expulsion from the market area generally. Section 27(2) was held to contemplate fixation of licence-fee maxima by rules. The market committee was treated as lawfully continuing under the transitional provisions, since the earlier committee was deemed to continue until duly reconstituted and elections had not been shown to have been deliberately withheld. The objection to the rules failed because the statutory requirement of laying them before the Legislature was held to be directory rather than mandatory, and their validity was not destroyed by the manner in which they had been placed before the Houses.

Conclusion: All remaining challenges to section 30, section 27(2), the market committee, and the rules were rejected.

Final Conclusion: The statutory scheme was upheld in substance, and no constitutional or statutory infirmity was found in the challenged provisions or in the continued operation of the committee and rules.

Ratio Decidendi: Regulatory powers under a market legislation, when structured by the object, scheme, and procedural safeguards of the Act, constitute reasonable restrictions and are not invalid merely because they incidentally affect trade or continue transitional arrangements.

---