1981 (2) TMI 244 - SC - Indian Laws

State Laws Upheld: Traders' Business Location Compulsion Valid under Agricultural Marketing Acts

Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal Versus State of Maharashtra

Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal Versus State of Maharashtra - 1981 AIR 1127, 1981 (2) SCR 866, 1981 (2) SCC 722, 1981 (1) SCALE 334 Issues Involved:1. Compulsion of traders to move business locations.2. Validity of notifications and rules under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963.3. Reasonableness and legality of market area declarations.4. Applicability of rules to transactions between traders.5. Compliance with principles of natural justice.6. Specific issues related to markets in Maharashtra, Bombay, Karnataka, and Bihar.Detailed Analysis:1. Compulsion of Traders to Move Business Locations:The traders resisted moving their business locations to newly established markets or market yards as mandated by the respective Market Committees under various State Agricultural Produce Marketing Acts. The court noted that the traders were compelled to move into designated market yards like Gultekadi and Turbhe if they wished to continue their business. The court upheld the notifications and circulars that mandated this move, emphasizing the importance of regulated marketing areas for effective supervision and control.2. Validity of Notifications and Rules under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963:The petitioners argued that the Act did not empower the Director of Marketing or Market Committee to compel traders to move their business to principal or subsidiary markets. The court rejected this argument, stating that Section 5 of the Act, read with Sections 14 and 21 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act, vested sufficient power in the Director to establish and disestablish markets. Rule 5, which prohibited marketing outside principal or subsidiary markets, was deemed consistent with the Act's objectives and within the rule-making authority's competence.3. Reasonableness and Legality of Market Area Declarations:The court addressed the petitioners' argument that declaring large areas like Greater Bombay and Turbhe village as a single market area was unreasonable. The court found the declarations reasonable, citing the need to decongest existing markets and the strategic location of new markets like Turbhe. The court also dismissed concerns about the readiness of new markets, noting that reasonable facilities and conveniences were now available.4. Applicability of Rules to Transactions Between Traders:The petitioners contended that the Act should only apply to transactions between producers and traders, not between traders themselves. The court rejected this, clarifying that the Act aimed to regulate all stages of marketing within the market area, including transactions between traders. The court emphasized that effective regulation required all transactions to occur within designated markets to prevent circumvention of the Act's provisions.5. Compliance with Principles of Natural Justice:In the Bihar cases, petitioners argued that the establishment of market yards without inviting objections violated natural justice principles. The court held that the declaration of market yards was a legislative act, not requiring adherence to natural justice principles. The court cited precedents to support the view that legislative actions, including delegated legislation, are not subject to natural justice rules unless explicitly provided by statute.6. Specific Issues Related to Markets in Maharashtra, Bombay, Karnataka, and Bihar:- Maharashtra and Bombay: The court upheld the establishment of markets like Gultekadi and Turbhe, rejecting arguments about the unreasonableness of market area declarations and the readiness of new markets.- Karnataka: The court addressed similar issues, noting the three-tier scheme of Market Area, Market, and sub-markets. The court found the provisions of the Karnataka Act, including the application to transactions between traders, consistent with the Act's objectives.- Bihar: The court addressed the erratic declarations of market yards, noting that the seeming confusion was due to the government's attempt to accommodate traders. The court rejected the argument that the establishment of market yards required inviting objections, affirming the legislative nature of such declarations.Conclusion:The court dismissed all writ petitions and civil appeals, upholding the validity of the notifications and rules under the respective Agricultural Produce Marketing Acts. The court emphasized the necessity of regulated markets for effective supervision and control, benefiting both producers and traders. The court also clarified that legislative actions, including the establishment of market yards, are not subject to natural justice principles unless explicitly provided by statute.