GOVINDA CHANDRA PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to quash the notification dated 3-8-1996 (Annexure 1 in O.J.C. No. 10495/96) of the Co-operation Department of the Government of Orissa amending the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1958 ( for short, the 'Rules') being arbitrary unreasonable against the public policy and ultra vires of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act. 1956 ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) The petitioner in O.J.C. No. 4064 of 1996 is a member of Sakhigopal Regulated Market Committee in the district of Puri and petitioner no. 1 in O.J.C. No. 10495 of 1996 is a life member of the Bahada Jhola Regulated Market Committee and petitioner No. 2 is an ex-member of the said market committee in the district of Nayagarh.Their case is, the above market committees have been constituted under the provisions of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Market Act. 1953 (Act 3 of 1957). The members of the committee are elected representatives of the traders, agricultural producers, local bodies and officials nominated by the Government. The Marketing Rules 1956 have been framed to carry out the purposes of the Act. According to them, the above notification dated 3-8-1996 brought out substantial amendment of rules 25, 33, sub-rule (2) of rule 39 and rule 45 of the Rules by way of substitution and insertions.The said rules are challenged as arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra vires of the provisions of the Act. It is claimed that rule 45(b) makes it obligatory for the market committee to contribute to the Board's fund an additional percentage from out of the income of committee besides the statutory contribution of not less than 5% of its income as provided under section 18-G of the Act and, therefore, the rule is ultra vires of the Act. Same is also the case in regard to the amendment of rule 33 vesting the power of approval with the Board in the matters of appointment of officers and servants of the Committee and in regard to the punishment pursuant to the disciplinary proceeding in violation of section 9 of the Act. Amended rule 39(2) and rule 45 substituting the controlling and supervisory power of the Director in the existing rules with that of the Board is also claimed to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and against the direction and guideline of the Ministry of Rural Development and Directorate of marketing and Inspector of the Government of India. Besides the above., the entire notification is challenged as invalid, unenforciable for not having been laid before the Orissa Legislative Assembly as provided under section 27(6) of the Act.

(3.) Opposite party no. 1 , State of Orissa through its under secretary in the Department of Cooperation and Opposite party No. 2, the Director through its Administrative Officer have filed two separate counter-affidavits pleading the amendments to be legal and justified.