VIRUDHUNAGAR MALAIPETTAI Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein are two sanghams. These sanghams are registered associations and they are running two markets in Virudhunagar. They are private markets. These markets are said to afford facilities 1o agriculturists who grow cotton and groundnut in and about the area. The markets provide weighing sheds, yards for drying groundnuts, godowns etc. In 1952, the Government directed the constitution of a Market Committee under Madras Act XX of 1933. Certain provisions of this Act were attacked as unconstitutional, but the contentions of these petitioners that any of the provisions of that Act involved an infringement of the right on the part of the petitioners to do business failed. But their Lordships of the Supreme Court left the question open whether any rules promulgated by the government in exercise of the powers under the Act imposed an unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' rights. That, in the opinion of their Lordships, could be decided only after a market was established at Virudhunagar pursuant to the notification issued by the Government.

(2.) MADRAS Act XX of 1933 was repealed and replaced by Act XXIII of 1959. The new Act practically adopted the provisions of the old Act. The Act W3s intended to provide for the better regulation of buying and selling agricultural produce and for the establishment and proper administration of markets for agricultural produce. Pursuant to this Act a market is sought to be established at Virudhunagar. The contention of the petitioners is that the establishment of this market would constitute a serious disadvantage to them and would strike at the very root of the business which they are carrying on. It is claimed that Section 6 of the Act provides that no person within a notified area could engage in the sale or purchase of any notified agricultural produce except under a licence granted by the Market committee. This, it is claimed, is a serious inroad upon the rights of the petitioners to carry on their business activities. It is further stated that any person who buys or sells agricultural produce within the notified area will have to pay a cess to the Market Committee, whether or 'not he avails himself of any of the facilities afforded by the markets established under the Act. The petitioners claim that if that be the position, no person would make use of their own private markets, which would involve the payment to them of certain charges, and the result would, be that the private markets would have to cease to function. It is further contended that the levy of the cess is an arbitrary imposition being unrelated to any service. The features attendant upon the establishment of a public market amount, it is said, to an unreasonable restriction upon the constitutional guarantee of the petitioners to carry on their business.

(3.) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, it is pointed out that the constitutional validity of the Act has been upheld. It is urged that the cess, the levy of which is provided for Under Section 13, of the Act is a lawful levy, which is necessary for the) proper maintenance of the markets and the levy would in no way affect the rights of the petitioners to 'carry on the business, nor operate as a restriction upon that right. The counter-affidavit sets out many matters of detail to which it is unnecessary to refer in view of the limited question that has been argued before me.