ANIL PRASANT Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in this application challenge a notification dated December 27, 1995 issued by the order of the Governor of Bihar in exercise of power under Sec. 39 of the Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act ('The Act' hereinafter). By the impugned notifiction (copy at annexure-1) 'Chura' (flattened rice) has been re-introduced in the schedule to the Act at serial No. 19 under the heading 'cereals'. As a consequence Chura is once again included in the list of agricultural produce within the meaning of Sec. 2(i)(a) of the Act.

(2.) Mr. Tara Kant Jha, learned Counsel for the petitioners assailed the notification on the ground that it was issued without inviting any objections, suggestions, etc. from the general public.

(3.) Mr. Ram Janam Ojha, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Marketing Board submitted, and in our opinion rightly, that the power of the State Government to amend the schedule under Sec. 39 of the Act was quite unfettered and the Government had no legal obligation to issue any prior notice inviting objections, suggestions, etc. before making addition of any article (s) in the schedule or making cancellation of any item(s) specified in the schedule. The question of inviting objections would arise only when an agricultural produce is brought within the regulatory provisions of the Act by the issuance of the notifications under Secs. 3 and 4 of the Act.