SATYANARAYAN COCONUT COMPANY GULBARGA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, the petitioner has challenged the notification dated 20-3-1989, issued by respondent No. 1 that is the State government, published in Karnataka Gazette, dated 23-3-1989, whereby the State of Karnataka exercising the powers under section 5 of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966, declared raw chilli, banana and coconut as notified agricultural produces. It also declared that the agricultural produce in entire Gulbarga, Aland, Afzalpur and jewargi Taluks shall come within the framework of expression 'notified Agricultural and Marketing' in respect thereof is to be regulated by the provisions of the said Act.

(2.) THE Counsels for the parties have very fairly submitted that this notification has been challenged on the grounds mentioned in the writ petitions, to the effect that the Chief marketing Officer has not published any notification under section 6 (2) (a), (b) and (c) of the Act, had not followed the prescribed procedure for establishment of market and market yard. But this very notification had already been challenged in a. R. Khaleel v State of Karnataka and Others, on these very grounds and this Court has rejected the petitioners contention, after considering the arguments in detail and has held that the notifications are valid.

(3.) I have applied my mind to the submission of the learned Counsel for the parties. I have gone through the petition as well. The notification has been challenged in these petitions on the ground that Gulbarga is not the coconut growing area and secondly that notification dated 20-3-1989 is the preliminary notification. I have also seen the statement of objections which clearly shows that preliminary notification was issued and published on 18-8-1988 in the Karnataka Gazette, and also in karnataka Newspapers on 14-8-1988. This notification is dated 5-8-1988 and market functionaries were given time to file objections within 30 days. According to the case of respondents and the statement of objections, no objection or suggestions were received in pursuance of notification dated 5-8-1988 till the last date for filing objections. As such the notification dated 20-3-1989 had been issued and published declaring coconut along with other produces to be agricultural produces for the area referred to. After the issuance of the final notification, the petitioner was required to comply with the requirements of law in the matter of marketing in the area in the newly added produces.