P.JAGANMOHAN REDDY - (1.) , J.: - This Appeal is by Special Leave against the Judgment of the Mysore High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants and Respondent Ho. 3 against Respondents 1 and 2, the Market Committee, Sirsi and the State of Mysore respectively, by which they challenged the Notification of the Government of Mysore No. DPC 206 CMD 64 (i) dated 5/01/1965. The Town of Sirsi in the North Canara which wee once part of the Bombay State is one of the leading markets for Areca, Cardamom and Pepper. The Appellants have been carrying on business in these 3 commodities on a large scale for many years in this town mainly in the localities comprising Channapattan Galli Basti Galli and Nadged Galli, while the Respondent 3 who is a dealer in the said commodities was carrying on business in Nadged Galli. In the Channapattan Galli there are nearly 20 Commission Agents who own shops and godowns who also deal in these commodities. It was stated that the three Gallis constitute the main market where wholesale business in the aforesaid commodities is being carried on for more than a century.
(2.) THE Bombay Legislature had passed the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act. 1939 (Act of 1939) and thereafter made rules under the Act known as Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Rules hereinafter referred to as the Act and Rules respectively. In 1951 under the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act the Government of Bombay declared the town of Sirsi and various surrounding villages, 59 in number, as a market area in respect of Areca, Pepper and Cardimom and by Notification dated 24/04/1951 had also declared the 3 Gallis referred to above as the Market Yard under the Act. In 1954 the Act was amended by the addition of Section 4-A to which a reference will be made presently. After the amendment of the said Act, on 31-8-1954 the Government of Bombay Notified the three Gallis of Channapattan, Basti and Nadged which previously had been declared as a Market Yard, as the Principal Market Yard of the said Market area under Section 4-A (2) proviso. After this declaration it is said the Appellants invested large amounts in buildings which are worth ten lacs of Rupees and improved their trade. Similarly in the Nadged Galli the properties of Commission Agents are worth about Rs. 5 lacs and in the Basti Galli the business premises are worth about Rs. 2 lacs. It is alleged that Shri Hegde Kadve is a Congressman and as the Chairman of the Market Committee and also as the Chairman of the Sirsi Totgars Co-operative Society and President of the Taluka Board had considerable personal influence over the Congress Ministry and consequently prevailed on the Government to grant to the Market Committee free of cost land measuring about 10 acres and 37 gunthas for a market at a distance of more than a mile from the present market., which was divided into plots, on which he managed to get shops, godowns and offices constructed with the money secured by the Society as a loan from the Government at a very low rate of interest. The Market Committee disposed of eleven sites to private parties and also allowed the Co-operative Society to construct premises for a Rice Mill, but notwithstanding these constructions the new site for the Market has no amenities. The impugned Notification had the effect of prohibiting persons from carrying on business in the said three main commodities at the old market Yard, and has thus destroyed the business of traders including that of the Appellants. The new site it was said was only so declared with a view to confer on the Co-operative Society a monopoly in trade as it would not be possible for traders to invest money and construct new buildings and godowns for carrying on trade at the new market site. The Notification was thus challenged as being ultra vires of the provisions of the Act, illegal, arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory, violating Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 31 of the Constitution. The Respondents denied the several allegations made against them. Respondent 1 stated that the Market Committee having felt as early as 1958 that the area of the three Gallis was insufficient to cope with the expanding business and made efforts to acquire a more convenient and spacious area to house the market. In furtherance of this desire and with the object of providing better facilities to the Agriculturists, the Committee from time to time made representations to the Government, which ultimately granted in all 35 acres 29 gunthas of land. Thereafter steps were taken for the development of the said area by leasing out plots to Commission Agents and traders who were induced to build premises for the purpose of sale and purchase of the Agricultural produce in the Market Yard. The Committee thereafter resolved on 13-7-1954 to request the Government, to declare the new area as the Principal Market Yard while at the same time permitting the traders to continue their business in the existing place for a period of one or two years. It was also pointed out that the Market Committee of which the Appellant No. 1 was a Member have never objected to the shifting of the Market Yard since 1958 but on the contrary had applied for the grant of plots and was complaining that the Government was delaying the issue of the necessary Notification. Besides the Appellant there were 14 others, who had obtained leases of the plots and constructed buildings on these plots. The allegation that there are no roads or well was incorrect. The new site was only about half a mile from the 3 Gallis and was centrally situated within the Municipal limits of Sirsi as is evident from the fact that the Totgars Society itself was transacting 30 Per Cent of the entire business of Sirsi Market Committee in the regulated commodities with an annual turn over of more than a crore of Rupees within that area. These allegations were considered by the High Court which held that it was open to the Government under Section 4 to alter the declaration regarding the Principal Market Yard. After setting out the history of the legislation it was of the view that the impugned Notification was issued in the public interest, and not with any ulterior purpose and consequently rejected the Writ Petition.
(3.) THE Short point in this Appeal is whether by reason of the impugned Notification the Appellants have been prevented from exercising their right to trade and whether it is discriminatory and affects in any manner their right to property. The Act under which the Notification issued deals with the regulation of purchase and sale of agricultural produce in the State of Bombay including the area which has now become part of Mysore State as a consequence of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. An examination of the provisions of the Act would show that there is no warrant for holding that there is anything which affects the freedom to carry on trade or business nor is there anything which can be said to be discriminatory. Section 2 of the Act in so far as relevant defines Market, Market Area, Principal Market Yard, Sub-Market Yard. Section 3 provides for the constitution of Markets and Market Committees and confers power on the Commissioner by Notification to declare his intention of regulating the purchase and sale of such agricultural produce and in such area as may be specified and inviting objections and suggestions within a month of the publication of the Notification. The Commissioner may after considering the objection, and suggestions if any received by him during that period and after holding such enquiry as may be necessary declare the area under Section 4-A to be Market area for the purposes of the Act. Section 4 (2) provides that after the Market area is declared no place in the said area shall subject to the provisions of Section 5-A be used for the purchase or sale of any agricultural produce specified in the Notification. Section 5 confers power on the State Government after the declaration of the Market area to establish a Market Committee for every Market area and under Section 5-AA it becomes the duty of the Market Committee to enforce the provisions of the Act and also to establish a Market therein on being required to do so by the State Government. In as much as there may be a time lag between the declaration of a Market area and establishment of a Market; the proviso to Section 4 (2) lays down that pending the establishment of a Market in a Market area the Commissioner may grant a licence to any person to use any place in the said area for the purpose of purchase and sale of any such agricultural produce and it is the duty of the Market Committee under Section 5-AA to enforce the conditions of the licence granted under Section 4 (2). Section 26 confers power on the State Government to frame rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act, and Section 27 confers power on the Market Committee to frame bye-laws with the previous sanction of the Director or any other officer specially empowered in this behalf by the State Government under Section 26. The State Government has power under Section 29 to add to, amend or cancel any of the items of agricultural produce specified in the Schedule to the Act.;