SUKHRAJ BHIKCHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE contentions raised and reliefs sought for in both the writ petitions are the same and hence they can be disposed of by a common order.

(2.) THE petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4739 of 1987 is a member of the Lasalgaon Agricultural Produce Market Committee, while the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5866 of 1987 is a trader and a member of the Islampur Agricultural Produce Market Committee. The reliefs sought for in the above writ petitions are:

(3.) IT is the contention of the petitioners that a perusal of statement of objects and reasons annexed to the Act of XXVII of 1987 would show that the State Legislature proceeded on certain assumptions which are wholly baseless and incorrect. The petitioners would further submit that there is no nexus between the amendments introduced by the Act XXVII of 1987 and the object, if any, to be achieved. According to the petitioners, most of the provisions are unconstitutional, illegal and arbitrary, rendering the whole democratic functioning of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees, a mockery. The further plea of the petitioners is that the amendments effected proceed on the total erroneous assumption, ignoring the actual working of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees and that there is a basic distrust among the trading community which is sought to be almost eliminated from the control of the Market Committee. The petitioners would further contend that the traders are experts in the field of marketing the agricultural produce and their experience in the field is totally overlooked.