GOPIRAM RAMLAL FRUITS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -firm by this writ petition has challenged the constitution of the Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Samiti') Respondent No. 2, and has also challenged the amendment of Rule 75 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules) made by Notification of the State Government dated May 11,1973.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to the present writ petition may briefly be stated as under : The petitioner firm carries on the business of purchase and sale of fruits and vegetables as Commission Agent for the last 20 years at Sri Ganganagar. The State Government by its Notification Under Section 3 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') declared its intention of regulating the purchase and sale of the agricultural produce in the area specified in the notification, but there was no prior consultation with the Municipal Council Sri Ganganagar and in the absence of prior consultation with the Municipal Council, the State Government had no jurisdiction to issue the notification Under Section 3 of the Act. The Government of Rajasthan by its Notification No. F. 10(36) Agr. V/63 dated November 26,1964, declared Sri Ganganagar as market area for the purchase and sale of the agricultural produce and a Market Committee by the name of respondent No. 2, was constituted by Notification dated July 30, 1964. The respondent No. 2 framed its byelaws Under Section 37(1) and Section 28 of the Act. Under Section 5(2) of the Act the principal market yard was also established. The respondent No. 1 issued notification to include the fruits and vegetables mentioned in para 9 of the writ petition. A pamphlet (Fx. 4) was issued by respondent No. 2 in this respect in consonance with its bye -laws. The Secretary of respondent No. 2 by his notice dated March 31,1973, informed the brokers and businessmen of fruits and vegetables to obtain licences. The petitioner's case is that according to unamended Rule 75 of the Rules, the petitioner was entitled to recover the charges of brokerage and other expenses like Hamali, Tulai, etc., described as 'fee' in this rule in accordance with the bye -laws and the bye -law provides that the dealers are entitled to recover brol erage and other expenses from the sellers at the rates mentioned therein. Thereafter Rule 75 was amended by Notification dated May 11, 1973, wherety at the end of Rule 75 it was inserted that the fee as specified in the bye laws shall be payable by the purchaser of the agricultural produce in the market and not by the seller. The petitioner has challenged the legality of this amendment in Rule 75 and has also challenged the constitution of respondent No. 2 on the ground that there was no prior consultation with the MunicipalCouncil for including the area in question for regulating the purchase and sale of agricultural produce. The continuance of respondent No. 2 as duly constituted 'Samiti' is also challenged and the petitioner sought a restrain order against the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's right of charging the commission and other charges from the sellers of fruits and vegetables.

(3.) I have heard Shri M.M. Singhvi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and, Shri M. Mridui, learned Counsel for non -petitioner No. 2 and Shri R. Balia, learned Deputy Government Advocate, for respondent No. 1.