JUDGMENT
S. Rafat Alam and Sudhir Agarwal, JJ.
1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as Public Interest Litigation the petitioners have come up with the grievance that respondent No. 2, U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Lucknow through its Chairman and respondent No. 3, Secretary, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Firozabad are not taking appropriate steps under U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) against respondent No. 4, Sabzi Adhati Association, Lalpur, Firozabad through its President Sri Naseer Ahmad, who are not only flouting the provisions of the Act but also acting contrary to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36992 of 1995 dated 18.11.2004.
2. Sri R.B. Singhal, learned Counsel for the petitioners at the outset submits that so far as relief No. 2 is concerned, he has been advised not to press it. It is further urged that respondent No. 4 is engaged in wholesale transactions of notified agricultural produce at Lalpur despite the fact that the State Government has already issued Notification under Section 7(2)(b) of the Act notifying a ‘market area’ for said wholesale transactions. A Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36992 of 1995 vide judgment dated 18.11.2004, while dismissing the writ petition, however, further directed that respondent No. 4, who was petitioner in the aforesaid writ petition, shall shift business to the new market yard by 30th June, 2005 and shall not transact any wholesale business at Lalpur after 30.6.2005. It is contended that despite the aforesaid direction, the respondent No. 4 and its members are continuing with their wholesale business at Lalpur in flagrant violation of the Act and the authorities of the Mandi Samiti are also not taking any steps for observance of the provisions of the Act so as to ensure that no person should transact any wholesale business at a place other than the notified market area. It is further contended that inaction on the part of the authorities of the Mandi Samiti appears to be in collusion with respondent No. 4.
3. Sri B.D. Mandhayan, learned Counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 and 3, however, seriously disputed the allegation of collusion and stated that they are taking all possible steps to prevent any wholesale business at Lalpur but respondent No. 4 on the pretext of one or the other reason is continuing with such business.
4. Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4, however, stated that the members of the Union of respondent No. 4 have already consented to shift their business to the notified area provided the basic facilities and amenities are provided by the Mandi Samiti. He also submits that most of the members of respondent No. 4 union have neither been provided with suitable shops nor basic amenities and facilities are available in the market area and, therefore, they were compelled to continue their business at Lalpur. However, he also stated that since 30.6.2006, the members of respondent No. 4 union have not transacted any business at Lalpur.
5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. It is not disputed that the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification in the year 1995 in exercise of powers under Section 7(2)(b) of the Act notifying Navin Mandi Sthal, Kotla Road, Firozabad as the market area for Firozabad for the purpose of wholesale and commission based transactions in fruits and vegetables. The Mandi Samiti, Firozabad published a notice on 8th December, 1995 notifying to all the persons to shift their wholesale transactions in the aforesaid commodities in the notified market area. Challenging the aforesaid notification, it appears that the respondent No. 4 approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 36992 of 1995 which was dismissed vide judgment dated 18.11.2004 with the following directions:
Following the aforesaid decisions this petition is dismissed.
The respondents are directed to provide suitable alternative accommodation to the petitioners and its members with all necessary facilities. The petitioners and granted till 30.6.2005 to shift from the present location to the alternative new market yard provide to them. Thereafter the petitioners must shift from the present location.
7. A perusal of various provisions of the Act show that the object of the Act is to provide amelioration of existing marketing condition concerning the agricultural produce and the elimination of evils attending upon it. When a market area is notified, the traders cannot obviously be permitted to continue with their wholesale transactions and business activities at a place other than notified area. The traders are required to sale and purchase produce in one complex. The provisions are confined to wholesale transactions, and, freedom to negotiate including as to the price, customs, equality is left unhampered. If on declaration of market area, shifting of the traders to the notified area is not insisted upon, the entire purpose would be defeated and the object may remain a paper transaction. The object being the supervision and control of the transaction of purchase by the traders from the agriculturists in order to prevent exploitation of the later by forms would stand defeated in case such shifting is not insisted upon. The Apex Court reiterated these principles in Laxmi Industries v. State of U.P. and Ors. and Ram Chand Kailash Kumar and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. .
8. In Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal and Ors. v. State of Maharastra and Ors. the Apex Court stressed on the issue that in order to protect agriculturist from exploitation and to provide him better bargaining in the market area, provisions of establishment of a market area of agricultural produce has been made. Considering an Act pan materia to the Act in the case in hand, the Apex Court in Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal and others (Supra) held-
Where a producer brings his produce to the market, he will deal face to face not with one but with several traders, with a greater chance of getting the best price for his produce. This cannot happen if he is persuaded to take his produce to the place of business of an individual trader outside the principal or subsidiary market. There is a greater possibility of abuse and greater likelihood of the object of the Act being frustrated. Fair price to the agriculturist will soon be a mirage and the evil sought to be prevented will persist.
9. In Kewal Krishna Puri v. State of Punjab need to confine transaction of business in the notified area was expressed in the following words:
No body can be allowed to establish a purchasing centre of his own at any place he likes in the market area without there being such a permission or authority from the Market Committee. After all the whole object of the Act is the supervision and control of the transactions of purchase by the traders from the agriculturists in order to prevent exploitation of the latter by the former. The supervision and control can be effective only in specified localities and places and not throughout the extensive market area.
10. The validity of Section 2(b) of the Act is not in question in the case in hand but it would be useful to observe that the same has already been upheld by this Court in Amrit Rice Mills v. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti 1987 UPLBEC 394. Section 9 of the Act provides that from the date of declaration of an area as Market Area no Local Body or other person shall, within the Market Area, set up, establish or continue, or allow to be set up, establish or continue, any place for the sale-purchase, storage, weighment or processing of the specified agricultural produce, except under and in accordance with the condition of a licence granted by the Committee concerned. Sub-section (2) of Section 9 of the Act provides that no person shall in a Principal Market Yard or any Sub-Market Yard, carry on business or work as a trader, broker, commission agent, warehouseman, weigh man, Palledar or in such other capacity as may be prescribed, in respect of any specified agricultural produce except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence obtained therefor from the Committee concerned. Section 37 of the Act makes contravention of any provision of Section 9 an offence and prescribes penalty therefor. Section 38 of the Act, however, provides that no court shall take cognizance of any offence under the Act except on the complaint of Director or the Secretary or such other person as may be authorised by the committee by resolution passed in this behalf. Therefore, from the scheme of the Act it is apparent that once a Market Area is notified under the Act, in respect to all or certain agricultural produce, no transaction contrary to the provisions of the Act can be permitted since the same is also an offence and the offender can be punished in a competent court of law at the instance of the authority competent and authorised under Section 38 of the Act.
11. It is undisputed that Lalpur is not an area notified under the Act and therefore a wholesale transaction in respect to the agricultural produces i.e. fruits and vegetables cannot be permitted thereat. This would also be contrary to the direction already issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 36929 of 1995 decided on 18.11.2004 (Supra). Therefore, the respondent No. 4 or any other person in our considered view has no right to continue wholesale business in agricultural produces at Lalpur or at any other place not notified under the Act and the same would be in the teeth of the provisions of the Act.
12. Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 at this stage sought to vehemently argue that they are trying to pursue the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 to notify Lalpur also as Sub-market yard under the Act and the District Magistrate, Firozabad has also made recommendation to this effect and the matter is pending for consideration before the State Government.
13. Be that as it may, the fact remains that Lalpur, as on today, is not an area notified under the Act for the purpose of wholesale transaction in agricultural produces and, therefore, no business activities contrary to the provisions of Act can be permitted by the authorities in the said area. In the circumstance the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to take such steps as permissible under law and not to permit any person as well as the respondent No. 4 to run or do wholesale business in the specified agricultural produce at any place known as Lalapur or other which is not a declared or notified market area under the Act. Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned Counsel sought to pursue this Court that basic facilities and amenities as per the norms and standards laid down by Mandi Parishad have not been provided in the aforesaid notified marked area on account whereof the member of the respondent No. 4 association are not able to shift in the notified market area. Without expressing any final opinion on this issue, we provide, that, in case, the respondent No. 4 makes a suitable representation before the competent authority pointing out the basic facilities and amenities which are not provided as per the norms and standards laid down by Mandi Parishad in the aforesaid area, the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall look into those matters and do needful in accordance with law at the earliest preferably within a period of six months from the date of making of such representation. However, the said indulgence does not confer any right upon the respondent No. 4 or any other persons to continue with their business in violation of provisions of the Act at a place other than the notified area and the respondents No. 1 to 3 are directed to take effective steps without any further delay.
14. With the aforesaid directions and observations, this writ petition stands finally disposed of.