- (1.) THE 21 petitioners of this case are the persons who carry on their business as dealers and Commission Agents in village Ghiror, district Mainpuri. On 25th of January, 1972, the State Government issu ed a Notification No. 376/XXI-B-1200(156)-69, under sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhi niyam 1964 (U. P. Act 25 of 1964), declar ing its intention to regulate, sale and pur chase of specified agricultural produce in the area mentioned in that notification. No one filed any objection against the aforesaid pro posal. Consequently, by means of Notifica tion No. H-1633/XII-B- 1200(118)-69, dated 21-3-1972, issued under Section 6 of the Adhi niyam, the entire area of Nyaya Panchayat Circle Ghiror, District Mainpuri was declar ed as Ghiror Market Area. This notification was followed by a notification dated April 22, 1972, declaring the area of Gram Sabha Ghi ror and Town Area Ghiror as the principal and sub-market yards, under Section 7 of the Adhiniyam (Annexure I to the writ petition).
(2.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek to get the aforementioned notifications issued under Sees. 5, 6 and 7 of the Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 quashed and pray for certain other consequential reliefs. The petitioners have impugned the Validity of the notification issued under Sec tions 5, 6 and 7 on a number of grounds. Large number of those grounds are covered by various decisions of this Court in the cases of the (1) Hari Ram V. State of Uttar Pradesh, Special Appeal No. 468 of 1968 and other connected cases decided on 16-9-1969 (AU) (2) M/s. Mangli Prasad Kamta Prasad v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Far-rukhabad, Special Appeal No. 280 of 1972, decided on 23-11-1972 = (reported in 1973 Tax LR 2372 AU); (3) Mandi Samiti Achalda V. Sri Lal Pratap Singh, Special Appeal No. 250 of 1972, decided on 15-5- 1972 = (re ported in 1973 Tax LR 2383 All) and (4) Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Gonda v. Jai Narain Hanuman Bux, Special Appeal No. 418 of 1971 decided on 9-12-1971 (All).
(3.) SRI S. P. Gupta wanted to urge that the decision rendered in the aforemen tioned Special appeals require reconsideration. However, sitting as a Single Judge, I am bound to follow all these decisions and as such restatement or reconsideration of the points covered by those decisions will not serve any useful purpose. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, advanced cer tain additional arguments for questioning the validity of the impugned notifications which according to him were neither raised nor considered in aforementioned cases and I would proceed to consider them.;