GUJARAT TOBACCO MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the Notification dated 4-3-1997 at Annexure 'C' to the petition by which the Government declared that the ten market areas shall cease to be such areas and added the agricultural produce of tobacco in the market areas of the 30 Market Committees named therein.

(2.) It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that draft Notification showing the intention of the Director was published on 2-3-1994 as per Annexure-A to the petition in the Official Gazette and also in a Gujarati Daily but it was not published as required by Rule 3 of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1965 which requires that a Notification issued under sub-S.(1) of S.5 or sub-S.(1) of Sec. 6 shall also be published by affixing a copy in Gujarati thereof at a conspicuous place in the office of each of the local authorities functioning in the area specified in the Notification. It was submitted that this Notification was finally published on 4-3-1997 in the Gazette and Gujarati paper but it was not published in the manner prescribed by Rule 3 of the said Rules in the local authorities of Thasara, Anand and Vadodara and therefore, the Notification cannot operate in the market area of the three Market Committees of Thasara, Anand and Vadodara which are shown at serial Nos. 9, 11 and 12 of the Notification at Annexure 'C' to the petition. It was contended that even if this Notification was treated as one under S.6(5) of the said Act it was necessary that the provisions of Rule 3 of the said Rules should be complied with before it could operate in the market areas. So far, in respect of the market areas of the said three Committees the local authorities had not received the Notification and therefore, it was not published and hence it cannot operate even if it was a Notification under S.6(5) of the Act. It was contended that by the said Notification simultaneously certain market areas ceased while more market areas were simultaneously specified and therefore, it should be treated as an arrangement falling in the latter part of the provisions of S.52.

(3.) . The learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand contended that the publication as prescribed by Rule 3 of the said Rules was not necessary in respect of the Notification issued under S.6(5) of the Act and therefore, even if it is assumed that the Notification though published in the Gazette and Gujarati newspaper as required by S.6(5) was not published in the local authorities of Thasara, Anand and Vadodara that would not make any difference because Notifications under Rule 6(5) were not required to be published in that manner. It was also contended that the first part of the Notification was relatable to S.52 of the Act and the ten market areas mentioned therein had already ceased.