Skip to content


Ghanshyamdas Badrilal Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Petn. Nos. 322 and 323 of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1969MP186; 1970MPLJ22
ActsMadhya Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 - Sections 3, 3(3), 3(4), 4, 4(1), 5, 15, 38(2) and 38(5); Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1962 - Rule 54 and 54(1)
AppellantGhanshyamdas Badrilal
RespondentState of Madhya Pradesh and anr.
Appellant AdvocateA.K. Chitale and ;R.K. Verma, Advs.
Respondent AdvocateK.K. Dubey, Govt. Adv., ;R.S. Dabir and ;B.M. Lal, Advs. for Respndent No. 2
Excerpt:
.....defined as meaning 'a market established under section 3'.clause (vi) of section 2 (1) says that 'market area' means 'the area for which a market is established under section 3'.according to the definition given in section 2 (i) (vii) 'market yard' includes principal market yard and sub-market yards, market committee' has been defined by section 2 (1) (viii) as meaning a committee established under section 8. section 3 provides for the constitution of markets and gives power to the government to declare, bv notification, its intention to regulate the purchase and sale of such agricultural produce and in such area as may be specified in the notification; subject to these rules and to the general or special orders of the state government and to such control as is by these rules or by any..........market yard, indore, and another by a cultivator selling cotton produced by him at the said market yard, challenging the legality of an order under rule 54 of the madhya pradesh agricultural produce markets rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the rules) issued to the market committee established for the indore market area under section 8 of the madhya pradesh agricultural produce markets act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the act), directing that transactions in the sale and purchase of cotton shall be effected only in the principal market yard of the indore market area, namely, laxmibai nagar market yard and nowhere else.3. the matter arises thus. on 23rd september 1953 the madhya bharat government issued a notification under section 4 (1) of the madhya bharat agricultural.....
Judgment:

Dixit, C.J.

1. This order will also govern the disposal of Misc. Petition No. 323 of 1968.

2. These are two petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, one by a person carrying on the business of sale and purchase of cotton at Sanyogitaguni market yard, Indore, and another by a cultivator selling cotton produced by him at the said market yard, challenging the legality of an order under Rule 54 of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Rules 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) issued to the Market Committee established for the Indore market area under Section 8 of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), directing that transactions in the sale and purchase of cotton shall be effected only in the principal market yard of the Indore market area, namely, Laxmibai Nagar market yard and nowhere else.

3. The matter arises thus. On 23rd September 1953 the Madhya Bharat Government issued a notification under Section 4 (1) of the Madhya Bharat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1952, establishing a market for the area, Indore tahsil for regulating the purchase and sale of agricultural produce including cotton specified in the notification. On the same date, another notification was issued declaring three market yards in the market area. The three market yards were known as Sanyogitagunj, Malhargunj and Pardeshipura market yards and their limits were specified in the notification. The Madhya Bharat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1952, was however, repealed by Section 43 of the Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, which came into force on 15th October 1960. By virtue of Section 43 of the Act the market established for the Indore tahsil area and the market yards therein were continued and transactions in the agricultural produce including cotton notified on 23rd September 1953 continued to be effected in the Sanyogitagunj, Malhargunj and Pardeshipura market yards.

4. On 16th December 1961 the State Government issued a notification under Section 3 (4) of the M. P. Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1960, superseding the notification issued by the Madhya Bharat Government on 23rd September 1953 and declaring Sanyogitaganj market yard to be a sub-market yard and defining its limits. Another notification was issued by the State Government on the same date under Section 3 (4) of the Act declaring a new market yard in place of the Pardeshipura market yard, defining its limits and making it the principal market yard. This principal market yardcame to be known as Laxmibai Nagar market yard.

Thereafter, on 8th September 1964 the Government issued an order under Rule 54 (1) of the Rules to the Market Committee directing that transactions in the sale and purchase of cotton shall be effected only at the Laxmibai Nagar principal market yard. It appears that after this order was made, a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in this Court by one Chhangalal challenging the validity and legality of the order. When that petition was withdrawn the Government addressed a letter to the Market Committee on 3rd July 1968 asking it to give effect to the direction issued to the Committee under Rule 54 (1) of the Rules on 8th September 1964 with regard to transactions in sale and purchase of cotton being effected only in the Laxmibai Nagar principal market yard.

5. Shri A. K. Chitale, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, argued that the directions given by the State Government to the Market Committee on 8th September 1964 and 3rd July 1968 were invalid inasmuch as in making those directions the State Government did not at all follow the mandatory provisions, contained in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act and did not invite objections from the traders and cultivators concerned and give them a hearing before making those directions as required by Sections 3, 4 and 5. It was further said that Rule 54 (1) of the Rules only empowered the State Government to give directions regarding management of the markets and did not empower the Government to prohibit business in a notified agricultural produce at any market yard; that if Rule 54 were to be construed as giving to the Government the power to issue a direction prohibiting the sale and purchase of cotton in a market yard, the rule would be ultra vires the rule making power conferred on the Government by Section 38 (5) of the Act.

Learned counsel proceeded to say that under Rule 54 (1) an order could be made by the Government only in the best interests of the trade and regard being had to the convenience of the trade in the notified agricultural produce, but that those considerations were not borne in mind by the State Government while making the impugned orders; that in fact under Section 15 (2) the Market Committee was enjoined to carry out only those directions of the State Government which provided reasonable facilities in the market yard; and that the direction of the State Government prohibiting trading in cotton at any market yard other than Laxmibai Nagar principalmarket yard was in no sense a direction dealing with provision of reasonable facilities in any market yard.

6. Before examining the tenability of these contentions it is necessary to refer to the material provisions of the Act. The Act, as its preamble shows, is concerned with 'the establishment of markets with a view to secure better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce in Madhya Pradesh'. By Section 2 (i) (v) 'market' has been defined as meaning 'a market established under Section 3'. Clause (vi) of Section 2 (1) says that 'market area' means 'the area for which a market is established under Section 3'. According to the definition given in Section 2 (i) (vii) 'market yard' includes principal market yard and sub-market yards, 'Market Committee' has been defined by Section 2 (1) (viii) as meaning a committee established under Section 8.

Section 3 provides for the constitution of markets and gives power to the Government to declare, bv notification, its intention to regulate the purchase and sale of such agricultural produce and in such area as may be specified in the notification; objections and suggestions are invited within the period specified in the notification; thereafter the Government, after considering the objections and suggestions, if any, and after holding such enquiry as may be necessary, establishes under Sub-section (3) a market for the area specified in the notification under Sub-section (1) or any portion thereof in respect of all or any of the kinds of agricultural produce specified in the notification under Sub-section (1). By Subsection (4) of Section 3 the State Government has been given the power to declare, by notification, any enclosure, building or locality in any market area to be the principal market yard for the area and other enclosures, buildings or localities to be one or more sub-market yards for such area.

The consequences of the establishmentof a market area are given in Sub-section (5). We are not concerned with it here. Section 4 inter alia lays down that the State Government may, by notification, signify its intention to include in, or exclude from, a notification issued under Section 3 (3) any kind of agricultural produce. Section 5 provides that any person affected by a notification under Section 4 can submit his objection in writing to the State Government within six weeks from the date of the publication of the notification and the State Government is required to take his objection into consideration. After considering such objections and suggestions and holding such enquiry as may be necessary the State Government may, bynotification under Section 5 (2), include in, or exclude from, a notification under Section 3 (3) all or any of the kinds of agricultural produce specified in the notification under Section 4.

7. The duties of the Market Committee have been prescribed by Section 15. The first two sub-sections, which are material here, ran thus:--

'15. (1) -- It shall be the duty of the market committee to enforce the provisions of this Act and the rules and bye-laws made thereunder in the market area.

(2) The Committee shall carry out any directions which the State Government may issue from time to time for providing reasonable facilities in the market yard.'

Section 38 (1) empowers the Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 38 provides that in particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions contained in Sub-section (1) such rules may provide for or regulate the matters enumerated in the various clauses of that sub-section. Clause (v) of Section 38 (2) gives to the Government the power to make rules for regulating the management of market. Rule 54 (1) of the M. P. Agricultural Produce Markets Rules, 1962, is as follows:--

'The market committee shall have absolute control over the market yard or yards. Subject to these rules and to the general or special orders of the State Government and to such control as is by these rules or by any other law vested in the Collector, or Director or in the local authority, the market committee shall manage the market yard in the best interests of the trade, having regard always to the convenience of the trade in notified agricultural produce and the purposes fur which the control is vested in the market committee. It shall be open to any market committee to place any market yard in charge of any officer appointed by it.'

8. It will be seen from the scheme of Sections 3, 4 and 5 that after a market is established for a certain area for regulating the purchase and sale of such agricultural produce in the area as are specified in the notification issued under Section 3 (3), any inclusion in or exclusion of any kind of agricultural produce from a notification issued under Section 3 (3) can be made only after complying with the provisions of Sections 4 and 5. If an agricultural produce is included in a notification issued under Section 3 (3) establishing a market, then trading in the sale and purchase of that commodity can be effected in any of the market yards in the market area unless trading in that particular commodity at a particular market yard is prohibited in accord-ance with law. In a market area where there are several market yards, the prohibition of trading in a particular notified agricultural produce at a market yard does not, however, result in the total prohibition of trading in that agricultural produce in the entire market area. There is, therefore, no exclusion of any agricultural produce from a notification issued under Section 3 (3) if trading in that produce is restricted to the principal market yards or one of the sub-market yards in the market area.

That being so, Section 4 (1) (i), which is concerned only with inclusion in or exclusion from a notification issued under Section 3 (3) of any agricultural produce, has no applicability whatsoever in a case where it is intended to restrict the trading in a notified agricultural produce to the principal market yards or one of the sub-market yards in the market area.

If Section 4 cannot apply, then Section 5 cannot come into operation. Here, the State Government has in no way excluded cotton from the notified agricultural produce for which a market for the Indore tahsil area was established. What has been done by the impugned orders made under Rule 54 is to restrict trading in the purchase and sale of cotton only at the principal market yard, namely, Laxmibai Nagar market yard. The contention, advanced on behalf of the petitioners that exclusion of trading in cotton in Sanyogitaganj sub-market yard and restricting it to the princinal market yard of Laxmibai Nagar was made in violation of the provisions contained in Sections 3, 4 and 5 cannot, therefore, be accepted. Those provisions have no applicability here at all.

9. In regard to the contention that the Market Committee is under an obligation to carry out only those directions of the State Government which deal with the matter of providing reasonable facilities in the market yard and consequently the Government could not issue an order to the Committee saying that transactions in sale and purchase of cotton shall be effected only in the Laxmibai Nagar principal market yard, it is no doubt true that Sub-section (2) of Section 15 lays down that the Committee shall carry out any directions of the Government for providing reasonable facilities in the market area and restricting of trading in a particular commodity at a particular market area is not making a provision for reasonable facilities in the market area.

But by Sub-section (1) of Section 15 the Market Committee is enjoined to enforce the provisions of the Act and the Rules and bye-laws made thereunder in the market area. Now, Rule 54 gives tothe Market Committee absolute control over the market yard or yards. But this control of the Committee over the market yard or yards has been made subject to the Rules and to the general or special orders of the State Government. With these limitations a Market Committee is required to manage the market yard in the best interests of the trade having regard to the convenience of the trade in the notified agricultural produce and the purposes for which the control is vested in the Market Committee.

In the management of the market yard, the Market Committee has to carry out the general or special orders of the State Government,' for it is one of the duties of the Market Committee to enforce the provisions of the Rules. Now, management of the market yard does not mean merely the administrative management or superintendence of the market yard. It includes directing and controlling in a particular manner the use of the market yard. It has been stated in Browne's Judicial Interpretation of Common Words and Phrases that 'management means administration, control, etc., and one of the synonyms of 'management' is 'government', which means control so that under a power to provide for the management of slaughter-houses a city has power to prohibit the operation of slaughter-houses within the city.'

If then the Market Committee has the power of controlling and managing a market yard and this power of management is subject to any general or special orders of the State Government, then it is clear that where there is one principal market yard and several sub-market yards in a market area, the Market Committee has the power to prohibit trading operations in a notified agricultural produce at the sub-market yards and to restrict them at the principal market yard. Likewise, the Government has overriding power of asking the Market Committee to impose such a restriction. That the power of management includes the power to impose such restriction is clear also from the fact that under Rule 54 the Market Committee is required to manage the market yard in the best interests of the trade, having regard always to the convenience of the trade in a notified agricultural produce.

The power of management of the Market Committee is, therefore, not confined merely to administrative matters but extends to the regulation of trade in a notified agricultural produce keeping in mind the best interests of the trade and the convenience of the trade in the produce. The State Government, therefore, acted within its rights in issuing the order to the Market Committee directing that transactions in the sale and purchaseof cotton shall be effected only at the Laxmibai Nagar principal market yard.

10. On this construction of the expressions 'manage the market yard' and 'management of market'. Rule 54 (1) is clearly intra vires the rule making power conferred by Section 38 (2) (v). Clause (v) of Section 38 (2) gives to the Government the power to make rules for the management of market, and that power includes the power to make a rule enabling the Government to impose restrictions in trading operations in a notified agricultural produce at sub-market yards and principal market yard.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners also urged that in making the impugned orders the Government did not give due consideration to the best interests of trade in cotton and to the convenience of the traders, and the restriction imposed by the Government would result in compelling the producers of cotton to carry their produce for long distances, thus imposing on them extra expenditure. It is not open to this Court to determine the validity of the impugned orders after entering into an examination of the question whether restriction of trading in cotton only at Laxmibai Nagar principal market yard would or would not be in the best interests of the trade and convenient to the traders. The convenience of the traders and the best interests of trade are matters of which the Government is the sole judge. It may, however, be pointed out that it would to a great extent defeat the very object of the Act if trading in a notified agricultural produce is permitted at all sub-market yards and is not centralized at a particular market yard.

12. For all these reasons, thechallenge to the legality of the directionsissued by the State Government underRule 54 (1) on 8th September 1964 and3rd July 1968 must fail. The result isthat both these petitions are dismissedwith costs. Counsel's fee in each case isfixed at Rs. 100/-. The outstandingamount of the security deposit afterdeduction of costs shall be refunded tothe petitioner in each case.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //