https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173259 The article examines a market-regulation scheme for agricultural produce under Article 19(1)(g), noting that the core provisions on declaration of market areas, establishment of markets, and regulation of wholesale trade were treated as a permissible regulatory measure and not an excessive restraint on trade. It also explains that the fee-levying rule failed because the Act required maxima to be fixed by rules, yet no effective maximum was prescribed, leaving the levy uncontrolled and ultra vires. The licensing rules were likewise invalid because they expanded the committee's power beyond the statutory limit, and the market could not be treated as lawfully established on the record. en-us Tue, 02 May 1961 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 11 Sep 2015 10:50:25 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173259 The article examines a market-regulation scheme for agricultural produce under Article 19(1)(g), noting that the core provisions on declaration of market areas, establishment of markets, and regulation of wholesale trade were treated as a permissible regulatory measure and not an excessive restraint on trade. It also explains that the fee-levying rule failed because the Act required maxima to be fixed by rules, yet no effective maximum was prescribed, leaving the levy uncontrolled and ultra vires. The licensing rules were likewise invalid because they expanded the committee's power beyond the statutory limit, and the market could not be treated as lawfully established on the record. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 02 May 1961 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=173259