1965 (8) TMI 85 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds Gujarat Agricultural Markets Act 1964, finding provisions reasonable and compliant.

Jan Mohammad Noor Mohammad Begban Versus State Of Gujarat

Jan Mohammad Noor Mohammad Begban Versus State Of Gujarat - 1966 AIR 385, 1966 SCR (1) 505 Issues Involved:1. Validity of Sections 5 and 6 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 19642. Regulation of retail sales under the Gujarat Act3. Prohibition of retail trade and its reasonableness4. Powers of eviction under Section 30 of the Act5. Legality of licence fees under Section 27(2)6. Constitution of the market committee7. Validity of rules framed under the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of Sections 5 and 6 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964The petitioner argued that the powers conferred by Sections 5 and 6 of the Act were 'unfettered, wide and unguided,' infringing fundamental rights. The Court held that the Director's authority under these sections, exercised after considering objections and suggestions, was reasonable and aimed at regulating the purchase and sale of agricultural produce to prevent malpractice. The Court rejected the argument that these sections conferred arbitrary powers, noting that the powers were exercised with the objective of regulating trade in agricultural produce.2. Regulation of Retail Sales under the Gujarat ActThe petitioner contended that the Gujarat Act sought to regulate retail sales, which were not regulated under the Bombay Act, and that this amounted to an unreasonable restriction. The Court found that the Act and the rules did not purport to place any restrictions on retail transactions in agricultural produce. The Solicitor-General conceded that the Act did not require a licence for retail trade in agricultural produce, and there was no prohibition against carrying on retail sales in the market area.3. Prohibition of Retail Trade and its ReasonablenessThe petitioner argued that the prohibition of retail trade under the Gujarat Act amounted to an unreasonable restriction. The Court noted that the Act did not intend to regulate retail sales, as evidenced by the rules and bye-laws, which did not impose any restrictions on retail transactions. Therefore, the contention that retail trade was completely prohibited was unfounded.4. Powers of Eviction under Section 30 of the ActThe petitioner claimed that Section 30 conferred wide powers to evict persons carrying on business without a licence, infringing the right to move freely and reside in any part of India. The Court clarified that Section 30 only authorized eviction from the precincts of the market and was disciplinary in nature, limited to individuals operating in the market area without a licence. The Court found the petitioner's apprehension unfounded.5. Legality of Licence Fees under Section 27(2)The petitioner argued that Section 27(2) did not provide for a maximum licence fee, rendering it illegal. The Court held that Section 27(2) clearly contemplated the fixation of maxima by the rules made under Section 59, and this argument was without substance.6. Constitution of the Market CommitteeThe petitioner contended that the market committee was not lawfully constituted as no fresh elections had been held since 1961. The Court found that the market committee continued to function under the Gujarat Act by virtue of Section 64, which deemed the committee established under the Bombay Act to be a market committee under the new Act. The Court noted that the delay in elections was due to pending legal challenges and subsequent legislative amendments, and there was no deliberate refusal to hold elections.7. Validity of Rules Framed under the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939The petitioner challenged the validity of the rules framed under the Bombay Act, arguing they were not placed before the Legislature as required. The Court held that the rules were valid from the date they were made and that failure to place them before the Legislature did not affect their validity. The Court considered Section 26(5) of the Bombay Act directory, not mandatory, and noted that the rules had been in operation since 1941 and continued under the Gujarat Act.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that all the contentions raised by the petitioner were without merit. The Court found that the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964, and the rules and bye-laws framed thereunder did not infringe the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 31 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed with costs.