VISHAL TRADERS Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above mentioned writ petitions are directed against notifications of the State Government dated 9 -3 -1981. The said notifications have been issued under Section 7(2) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Adhiniyam). The notifications refer to a number of agricultural commodities and provide that sale and purchase of those commodities shall be conducted at places mentioned in the notifications. The grievance of the Petitioners is that although they are carrying on business of the commodities mentioned in the notifications under the licences granted by the Mandi Samiti, they have been asked by the State Government to shift there place of business with regard to purchase and sale of the aforesaid commodities at places mentioned in the notifications. The Petitioner's grievance is that the action taken by the State Government by issue of notification dated 9 -3 -1981 is ultra vires the powers of the State Government under Section 7(2)(b) of the Adhiniyam and the said powers have been arbitrarily exercised without taking into consideration the public convenience, the nature of the business and other relevant factors. Their contention is that the order directing the Petitioners to shift their place of business to places specified in the notifications is not in public interest. In the writ petitions it has also been stated that they have been required to shift their business to the places mentioned in the notification failing which their licences for the sale and purchase of the commodities mentioned in the notification shall be cancelled. The notification dated 9 -3 -1981 and the directions issued by the State Government regarding cancellation of licences have been challenged in these petitions.

(2.) THE writ petitions have been contested by the opposite parties and in the counter affidavits filed in Writ Petitions Nos. 1784 and 2331 of 1982, the case put forward by the opposite parties is that the place at which the Petitioners are carrying on their business at present was never declared a "sub -market yard" and that the shifting of the business in question is necessary in public interest as well as in the interest of the State. It is also indicated in the counter -affidavit that the godowns have been constructed, of various types, to store the agricultural commodities. It is also stated in the counter affidavits that the places to which the Petitioners are required to shift their business are suitable for carrying on business and necessary facilities have been provided for the benefit of the traders. It is also maintained that security arrangements and the arrangements for street lights have also been made. They further maintain that new market yard is within the Municipal limits and that the shifting is neither Unauthorized nor unwarranted by the provisions of the Adhiniyam. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, it would be necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Adhiniyam. Section 2(a) of the Adhiniyam defines 'agricultural produce' as meaning such items of produce of agriculture and horticulture as are specified in the schedule and includes admixture of two or more of such items. Section 2(k) of the Adhiniyam defines 'Market area' as an area notified as such under Section 6 or as modified under Section 8 of the Adhiniyam. Section 2(o) of the Adhiniyam defines 'Principal Market Yard' as a portion of the 'Market Area' declared as such under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam. Section 2(w) of the Adhiniyam defines 'Sub Market Yard' as meaning a portion of a 'Market Area' declared as such under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam. Section 7 of the Adhiniyam provides that the State Government may by notification published in the official gazette declare such portion of the 'Market Area' as may be specified as the 'Principal Market Yard' and such other portions as may be specified as 'Sub Market Yard'. The section also provides that the whole of the 'Principal Market Yard' shall be located within the limits of one district only. Sub -section (2) of Section 7 of the Adhiniyam provides that the State Government, where it considers necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, may, by notification in the Gazette, include any area in or exclude any area from the area of a Principal Market Yard or Sub -Market Yard or abolish the existing Principal Market Yard or Sub -Market Yards and declare a new Principal Market Yard or Sub -Market Yards. Section 9 of the Adhiniyam provides that as from the date of declaration of an area as Market Area no local body or other person shall, within the Market Area, set up, establish or continue, or allow to be set up, establish or continue, any place for the sale, purchase, storage, weighment or proceeding of the specified agricultural produce, except under and in accordance with the condition of a licence granted by the Committee concerned, any thing to the contrary contained in any other law, custom, usage or agreement notwithstanding. From a perusal of the statement of objects and reasons for enacting the Adhiniyam, it would appear that the State Government was alive to the chaotic state of affairs obtaining in agricultural produce markets. It was noticed that there were innumerable charges levies and exactions which the agricultural producer was required to pay without having any say in the proper utilization of the amount so paid by him. In matters of dispute between the seller and the buyer, the former is generally put at a disadvantage by being given arbitrary awards. The producer is also denied a large part of his produce by manipulation and defective use of weights and scales in the market. The Government of India and the various Committees and Commissions appointed to study the condition of agricultural markets in the country have also been inviting the attention of the State Government from time to time towards improving the conditions of these markets, the proposal to enact a Marketing legislation was first taken up in 1938. The instant Adhiniyam was passed with a view to achieving the objective in the following directions:

(3.) IN this back -ground the question that arises for consideration of this Court is whether the power exercised by the State Government under Section 7(2) of the Adhiniyam changing the place of Principal Market Yard from one place to another is within the four corners of the Adhiniyam. One of the contentions urged on behalf of the Petitioners is that the effect of the notification dated 9 -3 -1981 is to deprive the Petitioners of their right to carry on their business and in this respect they invoke the aid of the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. This argument, in our opinion, is without any merit. A perusal of the counter affidavits would indicate that the State Government has not imposed any fetters on the rights of the Petitioners to carry on their business. In respect of agricultural produce they have simply regulated carrying of business at places which are more convenient to the sellers and purchasers and the shifting of the place of business has been done with a view that the producers of the agricultural produce may dispose of their articles at a place convenient to the purchasers and to persons dealing in agricultural produce. There is a specific averment in the counter affidavit that the opposite parties have never directed the Petitioners to close down their business. They have indicated in the counter affidavit the facilities which have been provided to accommodate the dealers in agricultural produce. This step has been taken with a view to relieve congestion in thickly populated areas and also with a view to enable the producers of agricultural produce to sell their goods without entering into cities. A perusal of the counter affidavit also indicates that the State Government has made adequate provisions that dealers in agricultural produce shall be provided with adequate godowns to store their goods and the management of the markets has been handed over to the Committees constituted under the Adhiniyam so that they may exercise control over the transactions relating to purchase and sale of agricultural produce. We are, accordingly, of the view that the argument of the Petitioners that the shifting of the Market Yard from one place to the other amounts to an unreasonable act which violates the fundamental rights of the Petitioners to carry on their business under Article 19 of the Constitution of India, is not acceptable. After having analyzed the contents of the writ petitions and the counter affidavits, we are also of the view that the provisions of Section 7(2)(b) of the Adhiniyam under which the notification dated 9 -3 -1981 has been issued are not ultra vires the provisions of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. In M/s. Atma Ram Ratan Lal v. State of U.P., 1979 ALJ 126 it has been held by this Court that the provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Adhiniyam are not violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The action under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam is taken only after the requirements of Sections 5 and 6 of the Adhiniyam have been complied with. Since the action taken under Section 5 and 6 of the Adhiniyam is not open to challenge, the action taken under Section 7(2)(b) of the Adhiniyam is also not open to challenge and is not violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India as held by the aforesaid Division Bench of this Court. It may be noted that the Division Bench by reference to M/s. vishnu Dayal Mahendra Pal v. State of U.P. : AIR 1974 SC 1489 held that the constitutional validity of the instant Adhiniyam has been upheld by the Supreme Court and that the provisions of the Adhiniyam are neither so harsh nor so drastic as to constitute unreasonable restrictions on the right to carry on trade or business.