RAM PARKASH NAND LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts of the petition are that the petitioners are small traders engaged in retail transactions in Bilaspur Mandi, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ambala. Under sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the erstwhile State of Punjab notified Jagadhri market area for tehsil Jagadhri and constituted a Market Committee with the principal market at Jagadhri and sub-yards at Bilaspur and Chhachhrauli along with some others. The notified market area Jagadhri comprised of nearly three Assembly Constituencies, namely, Jagadhri, Yamunanagar and Chhachhrauli. Respondent No. 3, in league with the Chairman of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the Board), respondent No. 2, with a view to have political gain, decided to have an independent market committee at Chhachhrauli with a sub-yard at Bilaspur. To achieve that objective, respondent No. 3 influenced the Punjab State, respondent No. 1, to issue notification dated November 30, 1971, denotifying a part of Jagadhri and a part of Yamunanagar notified market areas (copy Annexure 'A'). Even though there were no basis and justification for issuance of the notification on the same day, respondent No. 1 issued another notification, under section 5 of the Act (copy Annexure 'B') proposing to include villages mentioned therein in Market-Committee Chhachhrauli and invited objections and suggestions from the persons likely to be affected with specific declaration. The petitioners sent objections against the inclusion of Bilaspur Sub Yard in the proposed Market Committee, Chhachhrauli. The creation of proposed Market Committee is against the interests of the producers and the dealers alike. Respondent No. 1, without taking into consideration the objections of the petitioners and without affording any opportunity for personal hearing to the petitioners, issued a notification dated January 19, 1972 under section 6(1) of the Act, declaring the area comprising in Bilaspur Sub Yard as the area of Market Committee, Chhachhrauli (copy Annexure 'E'). The notifications (Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'E') have been challenged by the petitioners. The writ petition has been contested by the respondents.

(2.) The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the notifications under sections 5 and 6(2) have been issued without specifying the basic conditions as laid down in section 6(2) read with preamble of the Act. In order to decide this question it is necessary to notice the preamble and section 6(2) of the Act which are as follows :-

(3.) The second contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners filed objections which were not considered by respondent No. 1. In para 12 of the return of respondent No. 1, it has been specifically mentioned that the objections against the inclusion of Bilaspur Sub Yard in new Market Committee, Chhachhrauli were received which were considered and rejected on merit. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the objections had been dismissed without giving reasons therefor. It is not necessary for the Government to write a very detailed order. If the objections were considered by the State Government and rejected, that is sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Act. The learned counsel for the State has vehemently argued that the objections were duly considered and the petitioners cannot make a grievance on that account. After taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, I find no scope for interference on this ground.