RIKHAB CHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Rikhab Chand Jain who is a trader in agricultural produce, has challenged the validity of certain provisions of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the validity of Rule 61 of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1963, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

(2.) THE Act was enacted by the Rajasthan State Legislature with a view to provide for the better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for agricultural produce in the State of Rajasthan. The Act provides for the declaration of an area to be a market area by the State Government, after issue of a notification inviting objections and after consideration of the said objections and for the declaration of a market proper as well the principal market yard as the sub market yard. After the declaration of the market area, the Act provides for the establishment of Market Committee which is the administrative organ created for the purpose of implementing the scheme operated by the Act. The Act assigns to the Market Committee, certain functions for managing the market proper, the principal Market yard and the sub -market yard within the market area and the Market Committee has been given the power to control and regulate the trading activities both in the interests of the agriculturalists as well as the traders operating in the market.

(3.) IN his writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of provisions contained in Clauses (vii), (x), (xiii) and (xvii) of Section 2 of the Act, which define the expressions 'market', 'market proper', 'principal market yard' and 'sub market yard', Section 5, which provides for declaration of principal market yard as sub market yards and Section 9 which defines the functions and duties of die Market Committee. In the course of the arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner gave up challenge to the validity of Section 9 of the Act and confined his attack to Clauses (vii), (x), (xiii) and (xvii) of Section 2 and Sub -ection (1) of Section 5 of the Act. The said provisions read as under: