KANPUR ALOO ARHATI ASSOCIATION Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2003-7-53
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on July 07,2003

KANPUR ALOO ARHATI ASSOCIATION Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

M.Katju, J. - (1.) This writ petition and other similar writ petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment. Writ Petition Nos. 43985 of 1997 and 43987 of 1997, relate to wholesellers of fruits and vegetables in Kanpur City. While Writ No. 27865 of 2000, Writ No. 27730 of 2000 and Writ No. 27711 of 2000 relate to foodgrains wholesellers. Writ Nos. 27731 of 2000 and Writ No. 27864 of 2000 relate to wholesellers of Khandsari.
(2.) The petitioners in all these writ petitions are wholesallers of various Items e.g., foodgrains fruits and vegetables, khandsari sugar etc., in Kanpur City. The common grievance of all the petitioners in these writ petitions is that they have been asked to shift their business premises from the present place in the heart of Kanpur City e.g., Kidwai Nagar, Cooperganj, Collectorganj, etc., to a new market yard called the Navin Mandi Sthal at Naubasta (Hamirpur Road) which is at the outskirts of Kanpur City. All the petitioners have been informed that if they do not shift from their respective business places to the Navin Mandi Sthal, the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kanpur, which is a statutory body constituted under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as an Act), would not renew their licenses:
(3.) As stated in Paragraph 9 of Writ Petition No. 27730 of 2000, the foodgrains traders had been issued notices in the year 1977 to shift their business premises (including shops and godowns) to the Navin Mandi Sthal, Naubasta. Against those notices the dealers filed various writ petitions which were allowed on 21.9.78, vide Writ Petition No. 4833 of 1978 and connected writ petitions. Copy of the said judgment of this Court is Annexure-4 to Writ Petition No. 27730 of 2000, In that decision this Court held that there was no statutory provision empowering the State Government to force, a person to shift his place of business. However, subsequently by U.P. Act No. 19 of 1979 the Act was amended and Section 7(2)(b) was introduced which stated :- "The State Government, where it considers necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, may, by notification : (b) declare that the whole-sale transactions of all or any of the specified agricultural produce in respect of a market area shall be carried on only at a specified place or places within its principal market yard or sub-market yards.";


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.