ARG AGRITRADE PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the validity of Rule 56-A of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produces Market Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as " the Rules of 1963") being ultra vires the Constitution of India and/or modification to the extent of laying down the mechanism and guideline for defining the minimum distance between two or more private sub market yards in the same geographical location. Prayer has also been made for declaring licence dtd. 11/7/2019 (Annex.11) issued to respondent No.5 to establish private submarket yard within the vicinity of two kilometers from the said market yard of the petitioner and restraining the respondent to function and install sub market yard in the market area. Direction has also been sought to the State to provide some mechanism, guideline or rule so as to make the provisions of Sec. 5-A of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Acts, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1961) workable and to provide mechanism and criteria for providing distance between private sub market yard or sub market yard.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has asserted that because of non-providing of any distance between the two sub market yards, the project of the private sub market yard for which a licence, which was issued to the petitioner, has been rendered uneconomical and financially unviable as the licence for other sub market yard has been issued to respondent No.5 within a vicinity of two kilometres without taking into consideration the population, agricultural produce and the vicinity etc. It has been asserted that under Sec. 5-A of the Act of 1961 licence was issued to the petitioner and the rules have been framed under the said statutory provisions. Sec. 5 of the Act of 1961 provides for declaration of a sub yard established by a private entity for which the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market (Establishment of Sub Market Yard) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1987") have been framed. Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules of 1987 would be relevant as Rule 3 of the Rules of 1987 provides for criteria of sub market yard, which comes under sub-rule (d) thereof as per which the distance between the principal market yard and sub market yard in the market yard of the market committee shall be normally twenty kilometres or more and Rule 4 of the Rules of 1987 provides for procedure for declaration of sub market yard. There is no distance, as such, provided for establishment of two sub market yards, nor has any criteria being laid down which needs to be taken care of especially keeping in view the private sub market yard where the economic viability and financial criteria has to be taken note of. Senior counsel thus contends that where there is no criteria laid down with regard to the minimum distance to be maintained between two sub market yards, the same being arbitrary cannot be sustained and deserves to be declared ultra vires of the Act of 1961.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly informed the Court that on merits the allotment of licence to respondent No.5 had been challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court wherein the aspect with regard to the distance between two sub market yards had also been pressed into service with reference to Sec. 5-A of the Act of 1961 and Rule 56-A of the Rules of 1963 and Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules of 1987, which challenge was rejected on the ground that there being no distance specified or provided to be maintained between two private sub market yards as per Rule 56-A of the Rules of 1963. The discretion would lie with the State Government while taking into consideration all the relevant factors, as there was no distance specified. Thus, there was no bar for issuance of licence for private sub market yard within a distance of two kilometres from the other sub market yard. Even as per Rule 3 of the Rules of 1987, the words used are 'should normally be 20 kms and more', which clearly depicts that there was no legislative intent or bar mandated with regard to maintaining distance between a sub market yard from the principal market yard or between the two sub market yards. The discretion was, therefore, with the Government, which having been exercised, there was no illegality. This judgment of the learned Single Judge dtd. 7/2/2022 (Annex.12) was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court, which was dismissed on 17/5/2022 (Annex.13) upholding the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.