KAREDIN JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner wants issuance of mandamus declaring Section 7(2) of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam) as ultra vires of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The short facts which are relevant for the purposes of the present case are that the Petitioners are engaged in the wholesale business of food- grains and vegetables in Gopiganj, Distt. Varanasi. The Petitioners have been granted licence "in form 8 under the Adhiniyam. It is alleged that the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti was constituted some times in the year 1974 in Gopiganj, Varanasi and at that time there was no wholesale dealer in foodgrains and vegetables. It was in the year 1990 that the Petitioners obtained licences in form 8 for carrying on the wholesale business of food- grains/vegetables. All the Petitioners except the Petitioners 16 to 18 are carrying on the wholesale bnsiness of foodgrains and rest are dealing in vegetables. The shops of the Petitioners are situate in Galla Mandi, Gopiganj, Varanasi. It has further alleged that the Petitioners are carrying on the wholesale business in their own houses. It has been alleged that the Respondent No. 1 had( issued a notification dated 25th March, 1987 requiring that the wholesale transactions with respect to the specified agricultural produce mentioned in schedule 'A' of the notification be carried on only in the areas specified in schedule 'B'. The area specified in schedule 'B' consists of certain places in Gaon Sabha Madhorampur, Nyaya Panchayat Madhorampur, Vikas Khand Aurai, District Varanasi, bounded by the plots mentioned in the notification. The said notification has been issued under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Adhiniyam which envisaged the State Government to consider it necessary and expedient in public interest to-regulate purchase and sale of the agricultural produce and for controlling the market thereof. It has been alleged on behalf of the Petitioners that no notice or opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner before issuance of the notification under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Adhiniyam. In this case counter affidavit has also been filed at the admission stage on behalf of the secretary Kriahi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Gopiganj, Varanasi.

(3.) Counsel for the Petitioner has stated that he does not propose to file any rejoinder-affidavit. Since the counter-affidavit has been filed, with the consent of the parties and as provided under the second proviso to Rule 2 of Chapter XXII of the Rules of the Court, this petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself. In the counter-affidavit the main contention raised on behalf of the Respondents is that since the Respondents have constructed market-yard they are asking the Petitioners to shift their business from their houses to the market-yard. It has been stated that so long as the market-yard was not constructed by the Mandi Samiti, the Petitioner was permitted to carry on their business in their own shops but after the constructions of the market-yard they cannot be permitted to carry on their business from their houses and since the Respondents have authority to regulate the market the Petitioners are asked to shift their business in the new market-yard for which the Notifications under Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Adhiniyam was issued.