STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs. MANINDRA NATH ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of A.K. Mookerji J. whereby the Rule nisi issued on the application of the Respondents under Art. 226 of the Constitution was made absolute.

(2.) The Respondents are brokers, commission agents, measurers, wire-housemen and weighmen and they carry on the business in agricultural produce at Tarakeswar, Champadanga, Pursura, Amgao and Chiladangi, within the sub-divisions of Arambagh and Chandernagore in the district of Hooghly. The West Bengal Legislature passed the West Bengal Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act XXXV of 1972, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to provide for the regulation of marketing of agricultural produce in West Bengal and for matters connected therewith. By a notification dated Dec. 16, 1975, the Act came into force in the subdivisions of Arambagh and Chandernagore where the Respondents carry on their businesses. By another notification of the same date, certain areas including the places of business of the Respondents were declared as market areas. By a third notification issued also on the same date, that is, Dec. 16, 1975 (annex. 'E' to the writ petition), the State Government constituted a market committee consisting of 9 members under Sub-sections (1) and (3) of Sec. 5 of the Act. The market committee issued two sets of notices. By one set of notices, a copy of which is annex. 'H' to the writ petition, it called upon the Respondents to take out licences from the committee for a period of one year on payment of licence fees as specified in the notices. By the other set of notices, a copy of which is annEx. T to the writ petition, the market committee informed the Respondents that the committee would collect the market fees as par Sec. 17 of the Act from the buyers at the rate of rupee one per a hundred, rupee worth of transactions of jute, potato, onion, vegetables, paddy, rice, etc. with effect from June 1, 1976. The Respondents were, further, requested to maintain from June 1, 1976, registers and daily accounts in the proforma as set out in the notices. The Respondents being aggrieved by the constitution of the said market committee and by the notices issued by the committee (annexes. 'H' and T) moved the application under Art. 226 of the Constitution, inter alia, challenging the validity of the constitution of the market committee and the impugned notices issued by it.

(3.) The learned Judge came to the findings that the market committee was not constituted in accordance with the provision of Sub-section (3) of Sec. 5 of the Act and as such, it was illegal and ultra vires that provision and the impugned notices issued by the market committee were consequently illegal and invalid. Upon the said findings, the learned Judge quashed the impugned notification (annex. 'E') and the notices (annexes. H' and 'I') issued by the market committee. A writ in the nature of mandamus was issued directing the Appellants not to give effect to the said notification and the notices. The Rule nisi was, accordingly, made absolute. Hence, this appeal.