https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174628 Sections 5 and 6 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964 were upheld because the Director's powers were confined to regulating buying and selling in specified areas for market establishment, removal of malpractices, and protection of agriculturists; the requirement of hearing objections and the Act's scheme prevented unguided discretion. The Act and rules were also held not to prohibit retail trade outright, but only to regulate market transactions, so the restraint on trade was not unconstitutional. Section 30, section 27(2), the continued constitution of the market committee, and the rules were likewise sustained, with eviction limited to market precincts, fee maxima left to rules, transitional continuation treated as valid, and legislative laying held directory. en-us Wed, 18 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Oct 2015 14:39:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174628 Sections 5 and 6 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964 were upheld because the Director's powers were confined to regulating buying and selling in specified areas for market establishment, removal of malpractices, and protection of agriculturists; the requirement of hearing objections and the Act's scheme prevented unguided discretion. The Act and rules were also held not to prohibit retail trade outright, but only to regulate market transactions, so the restraint on trade was not unconstitutional. Section 30, section 27(2), the continued constitution of the market committee, and the rules were likewise sustained, with eviction limited to market precincts, fee maxima left to rules, transitional continuation treated as valid, and legislative laying held directory. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 18 Aug 1965 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=174628