KUMAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR WITH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ petitions the constitutional validity of Bihar Agriculture Produce Market (Repeal) Act, 2006, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Repeal Act of 2006 ') has been challenged.

(2.) The petitioners, different in each writ petition, are alleging themselves to represent the interest of the persons employed at Bihar Agriculture Marketing Board, Market/Committees/Bazar Samities, the agriculturists and the Members of the Board/the Committees/Samities.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have raised number of contentions which were of various shades and colours but in substance, the contention was: - (A) that the impugned Act has been enacted without application of mind and a colourable piece of legislation because the Bihar Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1960 ') had been tested and upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court as a reasonable restriction on freedom of marketing agriculture produce but before repealing that Act of 1960, no enquiry has been made into the necessity of change in legislative policy in furtherance of which Act of 1960 had been enacted indicating that the Repeal Act has been enacted without application of mind. As a limb of this argument it was urged that in the object for enacting the Repeal Act, it has been stated that regulation of Agricultural Produce Markets through the Act of 1960 has failed to achieve its objects. This justification is not founded on any existing material inasmuch as the Marketing Board at the time of repeal had accumulation of assets worth rupees one ninety seven crores suggesting that the Bihar Agricultural Produce Market Board has been functioning well. Secondly in the aforesaid circumstances the enactment of Repeal Act of 2006 is a colourable exercise of legislative power because the purpose of the Repeal Act is to acquire the property of the Market Board and nothing else. Thirdly no study, as had been conducted prior to enactment of Act of 1960, has been carried out before enacting the Repeal Act of 2006. It amounts to fraud on the legislative power of the State. Another aspect of the aforesaid contention about non -application of mind as to relevant consideration was stated to be that since the successful continuance of regulating the agriculture market produce under the Act of 1960, a legitimate expectation, has been raised in the minds of the agriculturists that the system will continue as it is. By enacting the Repeal Act of 2006, the legitimate expectation of the agriculturists has been belied for no valid reason. Concluding this argument, it was urged that for the reasons aforesaid, the action of the State legislature in enacting Repeal Act is arbitrary, unreasonable therefore antithesis of the equality clause of Art. 14 of the Constitution. It, therefore, infringes the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 14 of the Constitution. (B) The second contention that has been raised before us to support the ultra vires argument was that since the Act of 1960 was amended in 1982 by obtaining previous assent of the President for imposing market fees in terms of proviso to Art. 304(b) of the Constitution, repeal of the said Act of 1960 also required prior assent of the President. That having not been taken, the constitutional mandate in enacting a valid law has not been followed. It was next contended that in enacting the Repeal Act of 2006, the Rules of business which ought to have been followed before legislating an Act have not been adhered to and, therefore, the enactment of Repeal Act of 2006 is in contravention of the procedures laid down for enacting a valid law. (C) Lastly, it was contended about the wholesome invalidity of the Repeal Act that the Act of 1960 was an affirmative action by the State in furtherance of implementing the Directive Principles of State Policy. The withdrawal of the said affirmative action in furtherance of implementing the Directive Principles of State Policy is not permissible under the Constitution. It was urged that though no mandamus can be issued to enforce the Directive Principles of State Policy, but once an affirmative action has been taken, the same cannot be allowed to be retraced by nullyfing the action taken in furtherance of Art. 4 of the Constitution. Buttressing this contention further, Mr. Kanth, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for one of the petitioners urged that the ratio laid in Heyden 'scase governs the present case. He submitted that since the Act of 1960 was enacted to suppress the mischief of unregulating market of agricultural produce prevalent in the markets, the repeal of it without any material to substantiate the same would revive the mischief for suppressing of which previous enactment was enacted. Reply: