1990 (5) TMI 245 - HC - Indian Laws

Court quashes notifications under Agricultural Produce Marketing Act for non-compliance. Fraudulent representations condemned.

The court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the impugned notifications and demand notices under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing ... - Issues Involved:1. Validity of the impugned notifications and notices.2. Compliance with the publication requirements under Section 3(1) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966.3. Principle of res judicata.4. Allegations of fraudulent representations by government officials.5. Laches and delay in filing the writ petitions.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Impugned Notifications and Notices:The petitioners, traders in jaggery, sought to quash the impugned notifications and notices issued under the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966. They contended that the notifications and notices were contrary to law due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements laid down in the Act. Specifically, they argued that the notification declaring the intention to regulate the marketing of jaggery was not published in Kannada as mandated by Section 3(1) of the Act. The court found that the impugned notifications and demand notices were issued without proper compliance with the statutory requirements, rendering them invalid.2. Compliance with the Publication Requirements under Section 3(1):The court examined whether the notification of intention under Section 3(1) of the Act was published in Kannada in a newspaper circulating in the concerned area. The court found that the notification was not published in Kannada, as required by the Act. The State Government and the Agricultural Produce Market Committee (A.P.M.C.) initially claimed that the notification was published in Kannada, but later admitted that only a Press Note in English was issued in the Deccan Herald. The court held that the publication in Kannada was mandatory and not directory, and the failure to publish the notification in Kannada vitiated the impugned notifications.3. Principle of Res Judicata:The respondents contended that the writ petitions were barred by the principle of res judicata, as similar notifications had been upheld in earlier writ petitions. However, the court found that the petitioners in the present cases were not parties to the earlier writ petitions. Moreover, the earlier decisions were based on false affidavits submitted by the respondents, which misled the court into believing that the notification was published in Kannada. Therefore, the principle of res judicata did not apply.4. Allegations of Fraudulent Representations by Government Officials:The court was shocked and surprised by the false statements made by government officials in affidavits submitted in the earlier writ petitions. The officials falsely claimed that the notification was published in Kannada, which was later proven to be untrue. The court condemned the fraudulent representations and emphasized the duty of government officials to tell the truth. The court directed the State Government to take appropriate action against the officials who swore to false affidavits.5. Laches and Delay in Filing the Writ Petitions:The respondents argued that the writ petitions should be dismissed for laches, as the petitioners had delayed in approaching the court. However, the court found that the demand notices questioned in the present writ petitions emanated from a notification issued on 3-9-1987, and the process was incomplete due to non-compliance with Sections 7 and 8 of the Act. The court held that the petitioners had a continuing cause of action and that there was no undue delay in filing the writ petitions.Conclusion:The court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned notifications and demand notices. The court directed the authorities to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act for establishing a market and to demand market fees only after the establishment of the market. The court also directed the State Government to take appropriate action against the officials who submitted false affidavits. The petitions were allowed without any order as to costs.