https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172416 The Court upheld the statutory market-regulation scheme for agricultural produce, finding that the Market Committee's composition was not discriminatory and was consistent with Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) because it advanced the Act's protective object. It also held that trader licensing provisions supplied sufficient guidance, with intelligible standards of solvency and fitness, reasoned refusals, and appellate and revisional control, so the restriction was valid. The storage-facility obligation was treated as part of the regulatory framework and not an excessive trade restraint. Rule 76(1) mandating open auction was held intra vires and constitutionally valid because it was connected to securing fair prices and preventing malpractice. en-us Wed, 01 May 1974 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Aug 2015 11:17:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172416 The Court upheld the statutory market-regulation scheme for agricultural produce, finding that the Market Committee's composition was not discriminatory and was consistent with Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) because it advanced the Act's protective object. It also held that trader licensing provisions supplied sufficient guidance, with intelligible standards of solvency and fitness, reasoned refusals, and appellate and revisional control, so the restriction was valid. The storage-facility obligation was treated as part of the regulatory framework and not an excessive trade restraint. Rule 76(1) mandating open auction was held intra vires and constitutionally valid because it was connected to securing fair prices and preventing malpractice. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 May 1974 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172416