VASAVI TRADERS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Writ petitions are amongst a batch of a large number of petition.,- nearly 4298 in number - arising out of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Market (Regulation) Act, 1966, (hereinafter to be referred to as the 'Act). As one or more of the contentions were common to all the petitions, all the petitions were board together so as to afford opportunities to the learned counsel appearing in the cases to address arguments. The present batch of writ petitions disposed of by this order is representative of the contentions urged and argued at the hearing. The rest of the writ petitions - which have been heard along with these cases - will be disposed of in convenient batches following the findings on the various con - tentions recorded in the course of this order.

(2.) Petitioners in these writ petitions - as in the other writ petitions comprised in the batch, - are either "Buyers" or "Sellers" or other "Market functionaries" as defined under the 'Act'. A wide range of contentions have been urged in the writ petitions. Principally, however, the challenge is, (i) to the constitutional validity of S.65 (1) of the 'Act', as substituted by the Karnata.ka Agricultural produce Marketing (Regulation) (Amendment) Act, 1930, Act 47 of 1980) which sought to validate the Market-fee levied on the "sellers" of notified agricultural produce under S. 65 (1) for and during the period- of its operation prior to its being struckdown by this Court in Rajasekhariah v.Tiptur APMC (1), (ii) 1o the enhancement of Market-fee from 1% to 1% effected by the various respondent -Market Committees by amending their bye-laws after the permissible maximum levy of the fee on the Buyers under S.65 (2) was raised to 2% by the said Amendment Act 17 of 1980, the challenge being both on the grounds that the amendment of Bye-la,ws was made in violation of the mandatory requirements of prior publication and prior sanction contemplated by S. 148 and on the ground that the enhanced fee fails for want of quid-pro-quo and (iii) to the inclusion of certain items such as wood, cardamom, sugarcane, tobacco in the list of notified agricultural produce incorporated in the schedule to the 'Act'. So far as the Regulated Market of Bangalore is concerned, the further challenge is to the notification dated 13.11.1975 under S.6 of the Act shifting the main market-yard from the place in the heart of the city originally declared as the 'Market-yard' to a place in Yeshwantpur in the out-skirts of the city. We will advert to the pleadings and the contentions urged on each of these questions while we take up and deal with the contentions individually.

(3.) Before we proceed to examine the merits of the contentions, we shall make a brief reference to the scheme of the Act. The present 'Act' replaced the various marketing legislations of the former Mysore, Bombay, Madras, Hyderbad and Coorg as were in force in the areas of these State as from 1.11.1956. S.154 of the present 'Act' has repealed those enactments as in force in the respective areas.