BAPUBHAI RATANCHAND SHAH Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitioners have been carrying on business for many years at Vakhar Baug at Sangli. Their business is in agricultural produce. It appears that before Sangli was merged in the State of Bombay certain facilities wore given by the State of Sangli for erecting a market for sale and purchase of agricultural produce in this Vakhar Baug area and in view of these facilities the petitioners' case is that merchants invested a large amount in putting up buildings and giving facilities for opening of shops in these buildings so that the business of sale and. purchase of agricultural produce should be carried on. The Government then passed an Act which is the Agricuitural Produce Markets Act, Bombay, Act XXII of 1939, and the Act was made applicable to the Sangli State after its merger. The date on which the Act was made applicable is 20-7-1948, and the result of the application of this Act was that agricultural produce could only be bought and sold under certain conditions and under certain limitations. Various notifications were issued under the Act to which we shall presently refer, and the ultimate result was that the petitioners were prevented from doing their business in his Vakhar Baug area and a market was set up under the Act at some distance from Vakhar Baug. The petitioners, therefore, chal-lenge this Act and also the rules and bye-laws framed under the Act. The substantial challenge is under Article 19 (1) (f) and (g) on the ground that unreasonable restrictions have been placed upon the petitioners' right to carry on business and to hold their property. A challenge is also made on the ground that the value of these properties has gone down by reason, of the market being shifted to a different place and that the petitioners have been deprived of the property under Article 31 without compensation, and a plea is also made that the Act is bad on the ground that it imposes unreasonable restrictions under Article 304 (b) upon commerce within the State.

(2.) NOW, before we look at the relevant provisions and consider the challenge made, it would be perhaps better just to state briefly what the credentials of the petitioners are and what is the ground for tin's petition. Petitioner No. 1 is an old man and he is a big landlord in the Vakhar Baug area and he at present is not doing any business at all,' and the case of the respondents, the State of Bombay and the Agricultural Produce Market Committee at Sangli, is that exorbitant rents have been charged to the tenants who are traders and commission agents occupying buildings in this area, and in their affidavits they have pointed out that whereas the rent that was recovered in 1940 to 1942 was Rs. 10,829, this rent went' up to Rs. 97,368 in the years 1952 to 1954. An explanation has been attempted to be given by the petitioners in behalf of this increase in rents and rather a lame explanation is given that the rent was increased because some of the properties were used for cinemas and such other enterprise. Petitioner No. 2 undoubtedly is doing business and he applied for a license under the provisions of the Act and carried on business pursuant to the conditions of the license. It was realised by the Market Committee which was set up and also by a large section of the pub-lie that the Vakhar Baug area was not suitable for the purpose of a market under the provisions of the Act and therefore as far back as 25-3-1951, the Market Committee passed a resolution, for securing hind situated on the Sangli-Miraj Road admeasuring 99. acres and 30 gunthas for the establishment of a new permanent market yard in this locality. The Market Committee approached Government and requested it to initiate acquisition proceedings for acquiring this land. The Government acceded to this request and acquired this land. The Market Committee took a loan of Rs. 1,50,000 from the Government on 29-3-1954, with a view to develop this land and to have a proper market yard. On 16-5-1954, the Agricultural Market Committee passed a resolution requesting Government to declare the new site to be the principal market yard from 26-10-1954, which was the Diwali of that year. The Chamber of Commerce of Sangli passed a unanimous resolution on 3-6-1954, to shift the market yard from the Vakhar Baug area to the new market yard in October 1954. The allotment of places in this new locality began in 1954. Petitioner No. 2 applied for one of the plots and was allotted one. On September 6 the Marketing Committee published a notice informing the traders and general commission agents that the trade in the new market would commence on October 26, and when all preparations were made for the opening of the new market, the petitioners Sled this petition on 10-11-1954, challenging the Act and challenging the final notification issued on 10-10-1954, and also challenging the rules and bye-laws framed under, the Act.

(3.) NOW, when we turn to the Act, it is undoubtedly an Act passed to satisfy an urgent social need. Its clear object is to afford protection to the producers, protection from the exaction of the middle-man who deprived them of the legitimate return for what they had grown on the soil with the sweat of their brow. It is with this object that the Act provides that agricultural produce should only be bought and sold at a fixed place and under certain conditions which will protect the producer from not' getting what he is entitled to. Laws regulating marketing are not anything new And all modem States have put on the statute book similar Acts providing for the establishment of markets and also providing that certain produce should only he sold within confined limits of the market established and under, certain terms and conditions. But we regret to have to state that a simple measure of social reform has been rendered complex and cumbersome by rules and bye-laws framed under it which in many cases have been framed without any reference to the provisions of the Act or without realising what the rule making power was or what were the proper bye-laws to be framed wider the Act. New nomenclatures have been adopted when there was no necessity to do so and the result has been what one can only describe as chaotic. Even Mr. Joshi who appears for the State of Bombay very often was not in a position to enlighten us as to why a particular rule was passed or a bye-law enacted. Therefore, whatever our views may be as to the rights of the petitioners, we feel that Government should consider carefully all the rules and bye-laws which have been passed and try to bring them within a narrow compass and make them as simple as possible. It is not always necessary that the functioning of democracy must result in passing of laws which nobody can understand, and we did feel while this petition was being argued and we had put to Mr. Joshi that if we ourselves felt difficulty in under, standing some of the rules and bye-laws it was hardly fair to expect a trader in Sangli or an agriculturist in Sangli not only to understand the rules but to obey and respect them. The simplicity of law does not necessarily militate against its efficacy. On the contrary the more complicated and complex the law is the more difficult it is to enforce it and the more vulnerable it is to a challenge by those who are affected by it. Therefore, we sincerely hope that Government will take prompt measures to consider what proper rules and bye-laws should be passed and if the Act requires any legislative alterations.