Mandatory local-language publication in market regulation invalidated subsequent notices and demands issued before lawful establishment.

Publication in Kannada of the Section 3(1) notification was held mandatory because it formed an essential safeguard for informing affected traders, inviting objections, and enabling fair consideration before final market declaration. The Court found that non-publication vitiated the regulatory process, so the subsequent notifications and demand notices issued before completion of the statutory steps for establishing the market could not stand and were quashed. It also held that the writ petitions were not barred by res judicata or laches, since the earlier proceedings proceeded on an assumed factual basis that no Kannada publication had occurred and the continuing statutory non-compliance gave rise to a continuing cause of action.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether publication in Kannada of the notification of intention under Section 3(1) was mandatory and non-compliance invalidated the regulatory process; (ii) Whether the impugned notifications and demand notices could be sustained despite absence of Kannada publication and before compliance with the statutory steps for establishing the market; (iii) Whether the writ petitions were barred by res judicata or laches.

Issue (i): Whether publication in Kannada of the notification of intention under Section 3(1) was mandatory and non-compliance invalidated the regulatory process.

Analysis: Section 3(1) required a Gazette notification declaring the intention to regulate marketing and also contemplated publication in Kannada in a newspaper circulating in the area. Reading Sections 3 and 4 together, the language, object, and scheme of the Act showed that publication in Kannada was intended to inform affected traders, invite objections, and enable effective consideration before the final market declaration. The Court held that the word "may" in this context had to be read as "shall" because the publication was a safeguard integral to the decision-making process and not an empty formality.

Conclusion: Publication in Kannada under Section 3(1) was mandatory, and its absence vitiated the process.

Issue (ii): Whether the impugned notifications and demand notices could be sustained despite absence of Kannada publication and before compliance with the statutory steps for establishing the market.

Analysis: The Act required a sequence of steps: declaration of intention under Section 3, consideration of objections under Section 3(2), final declaration under Section 4, and thereafter the statutory process for establishment and regulation of the market. On the admitted facts, the Kannada publication had not been made, the statutory process had not been completed, and the authorities had nevertheless proceeded to demand market fee and issue coercive notices. Since the foundational notification was not validly communicated in the manner required by law, the subsequent notifications and demand notices could not stand.

Conclusion: The impugned notifications and demand notices were unsustainable and liable to be quashed.

Issue (iii): Whether the writ petitions were barred by res judicata or laches.

Analysis: The earlier proceedings did not genuinely adjudicate the present controversy because the factual basis assumed there was Kannada publication, whereas it was later established that no such publication had been made. The petitioners were not shown to have been aware of the defect earlier, and the continuing failure to comply with the statutory process gave rise to a continuing cause of action. The pleas of res judicata and laches therefore failed.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not barred by res judicata or laches.

Final Conclusion: The regulatory notifications and consequential demand notices were quashed, and the authorities were left free to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with the statute and recover market fee only after lawful establishment of the market.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute requires publication of a regulatory notification in the local language as part of a consultative process affecting traders' rights, the requirement is mandatory when it is integral to notice, objections, and fair consideration; non-compliance vitiates the consequent administrative action.

---