KHUSHI RAM Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 82 of 1974, 252 of 1974, 254 of 1974, 259 of 1974, 236 of 1979, 68 of 1981 and 89 of 1981, can be conveniently disposed of together, since the main points involved in these writ petitions are common to all of them. However, additional point or points raised in any petition would be also dealt with in the judgment that follows.

(2.) To start with, it is desirable to narrate the facts and contentions raised in C. W. P. No. 254 of 1974. In this writ petition, besides other reliefs, it is prayed that the Himachal Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1969 (9 of 1970) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) be declared ultra vires of the Constitution. It is stated that the petitioner is carrying on the business of commission agent in fruits and other vegetable articles within the territorial jurisdiction of Simla District. It is pointed out that the Act was promulgated in the State of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1970 and a notification to this effect was published in the Gazette dated 19th Sept., 1970. It is stated that the object of the Act stipulates to consolidate and amend the law relating to better regulation of purchase and sale, storage and processing of the agricultural produce and establishment of markets for agricultural produce in Himachal Pradesh. It is provided under Section 3 (19) of the Ad that the Board may, with the prior approval of the State Government, by notification, declare its intention of exercising control over the purchase, sale, storage and processing of such agricultural produce, and in such area as may be specified in the notification. Such notification shall state that any objections or suggestions which may be received by the Board within the period to be specified in the notification will be considered. It is further stated that a notification (Annexure 'A') in the Official Gazette under Section 3 (19) was published. It is further alleged that the State Legislature under its rule-making powers under the Act framed rules in 1971 and that Rule 5 provided as to how the publication of the notifications is to be effected. Rule 5 thereof may be reproduced for a ready reference:

(3.) On the above averments, the petitioner claims that the Act be declared as ultra vires of the Constitution and a writ of mandamus be issued directing respondent No. 1 not to enforce the same. It is further prayed that a proper writ or direction be issued to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to refund a sum of Rs. 1,008.13 to the petitioner as also the amounts which may be collected during the pendency of the writ petition.