{"id":51997,"date":"1981-02-17T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1981-02-16T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981"},"modified":"2016-05-04T12:23:54","modified_gmt":"2016-05-04T06:53:54","slug":"rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981","title":{"rendered":"Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal & … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc on 17 February, 1981"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal & … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc on 17 February, 1981<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1127, \t\t 1981 SCR (2) 866<\/div>\n
Author: O C Reddy<\/div>\n
Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nRAMESHCHANDRA KACHARDAS PORWAL & ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ETC.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT17\/02\/1981\n\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nBENCH:\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nPATHAK, R.S.\nISLAM, BAHARUL (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1981 AIR 1127\t\t  1981 SCR  (2) 866\n 1981 SCC  (2) 722\t  1981 SCALE  (1)334\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1985 SC 679\t (33)\n RF\t    1986 SC 515\t (76)\n R\t    1987 SC1802\t (10)\n\n\nACT:\n     Constitution   of\t India\t 1950,\t Article   91(1)(g)-\nMaharashtra Agricultural  Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act\n1963,  SS   5  and  6  &  Maharashtra  Agricultural  Produce\nMarketing  (Regulation)\t  Rules\t  1963,\t  Rule\t 5-Karnataka\nAgricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act 1966, SS. 8,\n10 and\t11 &  Bihar Agricultural  Produce Marketing Act 1960\nSections 5,  15-Trading in  specified agricultural  produce-\nState  Government-Setting  up  of  new\tmarket\tarea-Whether\nvalid.\n     Notification   declaring\tthat   traditional   trading\nactivity in old market area be shifted to new market-Whether\npermissible-Infringement of  fundamental right\tto carry  on\ntrade-Whether arises.\n     Administrative law-Principles of natural justice-Market\nyard disestablished  at one place and established at another\nplace-Duty to invite and hear objections-Whether arises.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The   Maharashtra\t  Agricultural\t Produce   Marketing\n(Regulation) Act  1963 provides\t for the  regulation of\t the\nmarketing of  agricultural produce  in market  areas  to  be\nestablished therefor  in the  State, Market Committees to be\nconstituted  for   purposes  connected\twith  such  markets,\nestablishment of  Market Fund  for purposes  of\t the  Market\nCommittees, and\t for purposes  connected with these matters.\nSection 3  empowers the\t Government by\ta notification to be\npublished in  the Official Gazette, to declare its intention\nof regulating  the marketing of such agricultural produce in\nsuch areas  as may  be specified and section 4 provides that\nthe marketing of the agricultural produce shall be regulated\nunder the  Act in  the area  specified in  the notification.\nSection(1) provides a principal market for every market area\nand  one  or  more  subsidiary\tmarkets,  and  section\t5(2)\nempowers the  Director to establish the principal market for\nthe marketing  of specified  agricultural produce. Section 6\nprovides that  no person  shall use  any place in the market\narea for  the marketing of the declared agricultural produce\nor operate  in the market area or in any market therein as a\ntrader,\t commission   agent,  broker,  processor,  weighman,\nmeasurer, surveyor, warehouseman or in any other capacity in\nrelation to  the  marketing  of\t the  declared\tagricultural\nproduce, on  and after\tthe date  on which  the\t declaration\nunder section  4(1) is\tmade.  Section\t6(2)  provides\tthat\nsection 6(1) shall not apply to sales by retail, sales by an\nagriculturist who  sells his  own produce;  and sales  by  a\nperson to another for the latter's personal consumption.\n     The   Maharashtra\t  Agricultural\t Produce   Marketing\n(Regulation) Rules,  1963 were\tpromulgated pursuant  to the\npower conferred\t by section  60 of  the Act. Rule 5 provides\nthat  no  person  shall\t market\t any  declared\tagricultural\nproduce in  any place  in  a  market  area  other  than\t the\nprincipal market or subsidiary\n867\nmarket established  therein. The proviso to the rule enables\nthe Director of Marketing to authorise a Market Committee to\npermit a  trader or  commission\t agent\tto  market  declared\nagricultural  produce\tor  to\t permit\t any   other  market\nfunctionary to\toperate at  any place within the market area\nas may\tbe mentioned  by the Market Committee in the licence\ngranted to such trader.\n     The petitioners  who were\twholesale traders  in onions\nand potatoes  in their\twrit petitions\tto the Supreme Court\nassailed the  notices requiring them to carry on business in\nregulated agricultural\tproduce in  the market\tyard at\t the\nspecified areas\t of  the  State,  and  at  no  other  place,\ncontending that:  (1) the  1963\t Act,  did  not\t invest\t the\nDirector of Marketing or the Market Committee with any power\nto  compel  a  trader  to  transfer  this  activity  from  a\npreviously existing  market to\ta  principal  or  subsidiary\nmarket established under section 5 of the Act (2) Rule 5 was\ninconsistent with  section 6  and therefore ultra vires. (3)\nThe Bombay  Agricultural Produce  Markets Act,\t1939 and the\nAgricultural Produce  Marketing Acts of other States such as\nKarnataka provided or indicated by an express provision that\nonce a\tmarket was  established it  was not  permissible  to\nmarket or  trade outside  the market and that the absence of\nsuch an\t express provision  in the  1963 Act  showed that no\nsuch ban  was contemplated  by the Act. (4) The transactions\nbetween trader\tand trader  and transactions  by  which\t the\nagricultural produce  was imported into the market area from\noutside the market areas were outside the purview of the Act\nand if\tsection 5  and rule  5 were  intended to  cover such\ntransactions also  they were  invalid. (5) The statue itself\nimposed and  provided for stringent supervision and control,\nsufficient to  regulate\t transactions  between\ttraders\t and\ntraders,  that\tit  was\t superfluous  to  insist  that\tsuch\ntransactions do take place in the market only. (6) Section 6\nof the\tAct made  a distinction\t between (a)  the use of any\nplace in  the market  area for the marketing of the declared\nagricultural produce,  and (b)\tthe operation  in the market\nareas or  in any  market therein  as  a\t trader,  commission\nagent,\tbroker\t etc.  in   relation  to  the  marketing  of\nagricultural produce and that the distinction was in reality\na distinction between a sale by a producer to a trader and a\nsubsequent sale\t by a  trader to  a trader, and consequently\nthe ban\t imposed by  Rule 5  applied only  to a\t sale of the\nagricultural produce  by a producer to a trader. (7) Section\n13(1A) which  declared the  area comprising greater Bombay a\nmarket area  for the  purposes of  the Act was invalid as it\nwas wholly unreasonable to constitute such a large area into\na  single   market  area.   (8)\t when\ta  market  yard\t was\ndisestablished at one place and established at another place\nit was\tthe duty  of the  concerned authority  to invite and\nhear objections and failing to do so, was a violation of the\nprinciples  of\t natural  justice   and\t  the\tnotification\nestablishing the market yard elsewhere was bad.\n     Dismissing the writ petitions and appeals:-\n^\n     HELD: 1.  (i) The power conferred by S. 5 of the Act to\nestablish a  principal market or a subsidiary market carries\nwith it\t the power to disestablish such market. Section 5 of\nthe Act,  read with  sections 14  and 21  of the Maharashtra\nGeneral Clauses\t Act vest  enough power\t in the\t Director to\nclose an  existing market  and establish  it elsewhere.\t The\nrepealed Act  of 1939 also empowered the State Government to\ndeclare any  market area  to be\t a principal market yard for\nthe area.  The power  to issue\tnotifications,\torders\tetc.\nincludes\n868\nthe power  to exercise in like manner to add to, amend, vary\nor rescind  any notification,  order, rule  etc.  Any  other\nconstruction would  frustrate the object of the legislation.\n[880 A-C, 881 C, D]\n     Bapubhai Ratanchand  Shah v.  State of Bombay LVII 1955\nBom. L.R. p. 892, 903-904, approved.\n     (ii) Rule\t5 is  not  ultra  vires.  If  for  the\tmore\neffective regulation  of marketing  it is  thought that\t all\nmarketing operations  in respect  of  declared\tagricultural\nproduce should\tbe carried  on only  in\t the  principal\t and\nsubsidiary markets  established under  the Act, it cannot be\nsaid that  a rule  made\t for  that  purpose  is\t beyond\t the\ncompetence of  the rule\t making\t authority  under  the\tAct.\n[881G, 882C]\n     (iii)  The\t submission  that  all\tregulatory  measures\ncontemplated by\t the Act  and  the  Rules  may\tbe  enforced\nequally\t effectively   wherever\t business   in\tagricultural\nproduce is  carried  on\t in  the  market  area\toutside\t the\nprincipal and subsidiary markets as within the principal and\nsubsidiary markets  is without\tforce. If  that is done, the\nregulation will\t very soon be reduced to a farce. The Market\nCommittee will be forced to employ an unduly large number of\nofficers. The  producer's  interest  will  not\tbe  properly\nserved because\ta producer  will not be able to deal face to\nface with  several traders  and would  have little chance of\nobtaining the best price for his produce. This cannot happen\nif he  is persuaded  to take  his produce  to the  place  of\nbusiness of  an individual  trader outside  the principal or\nsubsidiary market.  There is  a greater possibility of abuse\nand greater  likelihood of  the\t object\t of  the  Act  being\nfrustrated. Fair  price to  the agriculturist will soon be a\nmirage and  the evil  sought to\t be prevented  will persist.\n[882 E-H]\n     Kewal Krishan  Puri &  Anr. v.  State of  Punjab & Ors.<\/a>\n[1979] 3 S.C.R. p. 1217, 1247, referred to.\n     2. There  can  be\tno  question  of  any  inconsistency\nbetween section\t 6 and\trule 5.\t Section 6  is applicable to\nboth the  situations before  and after\tthe establishment of\nmarkets, and  is expressly  declared to\t be subject  to\t the\nrules providing for regulating the marketing of agricultural\nproduce in the market area by stipulating that the marketing\nshall be  carried on in the market established in the market\narea. [883F, D-E]\n     3. The  rule prescribing that no marketing operation in\nany  declared  agricultural  produce  shall  be\t carried  on\noutside the  principal or  subsidiary markets  is consistent\nand in\tconsonance with\t the scheme of the Act and is within\nthe  competence\t  of  the   rule  making  authority  and  is\nreasonable. Absence  of an  express provision  in the Act to\nthe effect  that once  a market\t is established\t it was\t not\npermissible to\tmarket\tor  trade  in  agricultural  produce\noutside the market itself merely means that greater latitude\nis  given   to\tthe   rule  making  authority  to  introduce\nregulation of  marketing by  stages and to ban all marketing\nactivity  outside  the\tmarket.\t This  cannot  lead  to\t the\ninference that\tthe rule  making authority  has no  power to\nmake a rule banning marketing activity\n869\noutside the  market once the market is established even when\nsuch a ban is found to be necessary. [884 B, 883 H-884 A]\n     4. (i) The assumption that the Act was conceived in the\ninterest of  the agriculturists\t only and intended for their\nsole benefit  is not  well founded.  One  of  the  principal\nobjects sought\tto be achieved by the Act is the securing of\na fair\tprice to  the agriculturist  for his  produce by the\nelimination of\tmiddlemen and  other detracting factors. But\nthat is not the only object. The Act is intended to regulate\nmarketing of  agricultural and\tcertain other  produce.\t The\nmarketing of  agricultural produce  is not  confined to\t the\nfirst transaction  of sale by the producer to the trader but\nmust necessarily  include all subsequent transactions in the\ncourse of  the movement\t of the\t commodity into the ultimate\nhands of  the consumer\tso long, of course, as the commodity\nretains its  original  character  as  agricultural  produce.\nWhile middlemen\t are sought to be eliminated, it is wrong to\nview  the  Act\tas  one\t aimed\tat  legitimate\tand  genuine\ntraders.[884D-F]\n     (ii)   Promotion\tof   grading,\tstandardisation\t  of\nagricultural   produce,\t  weighment,   the   provision\t for\nsettlement of disputes arising out of transactions connected\nwith the  marketing of\tagricultural produce  and  ancillary\nmatters are  as much  to the  benefit of the producer as the\nconsumer. Clearly  therefore  the  regulation  of  marketing\ncontemplated by the Act involves benefits to the traders too\nin a  large way.  Regulation of\t marketing  of\tagricultural\nproduce, if  confined to  the sales  by producers within the\nmarketing  area\t  to  traders,\t will  very   soon  lead  to\ncircumvention in the guise of sales by traders to traders or\nimport of  agricultural produce from outside the market area\nto within the market area. [884G-885B]\n     5. (i) It is not correct to say that the statute itself\nimposed and  provided for  such stringent  supervision,\t and\ncontrol\t sufficient   and  more,  to  regulate\ttransactions\nbetween traders\t and traders,  that it\twas  superfluous  to\ninsist that  such transactions\tdo take\t place in the market\nonly. The  other supervisory  measures in  the Act cannot be\nsaid to be sufficient to make it unnecessary for the traders\nto move\t their places of business into the market. No amount\nof  supervision\t  may  be  as  effective  as  when  all\t the\ntransactions take  place within the market. Nor is effective\nsupervision at\tall possible  if traders  are dispersed\t all\nover the  market area.\tThe rendering  of  services  to\t the\ntraders also  will  be\tfar  easier.  Therefore,  localising\nmarketing  is  helpful\tand  necessary\tfor  regulation\t and\ncontrol and for providing facilities. [887E-888A]\n     (ii) The  requirement that the locus of transactions of\nsale and  purchase of  agricultural produce, including those\nbetween trade  and trader, should be in the market cannot be\nsaid  to  be  harsh  or\t an  excessive\trestriction  on\t the\nFundamental Right to carry on trade. [888B]\n     6. The  proviso to\t rule 5\t speaks of  operating at any\nplace within  the market  area by a trader, commission agent\nor other  market functionary after obtaining a licence while\nthe main  provision refers  to\tthe  marketing\tof  declared\nagricultural produce  at any  place in\tthe market  area. It\ncannot be  contended that  the proviso\tis unrelated  to the\nmain provision. According\n870\nto ordinary  canons of construction the proper function of a\nproviso is  to accept  and deal\t with  a  case\twhich  would\notherwise fall\twithin the  general  language  of  the\tmain\nenactment. [888F-G]\n     7.\t There\t was  nothing  unreal  and  unreasonable  in\nestablishing a single market for a large area. It had become\nimperative in the public interest that the markets should be\nshifted from their former place to the new area. The present\nvillage was  chosen because  it was  free  from\t congestion,\nconveniently located near another trunk road. A railway line\nlinking with  both  the\t Western  Railway  and\tthe  Central\nRailway and so on. There is, therefore, nothing unreasonable\nin the\tstatutory declaration  of Greater  Bombay and Turbhe\nVillage as  a market  area; nor\t in the\t establishment of  a\nsingle market  in Turbhe Village for the entire market area.\n[889B-E]\n     8. Where  a market yard was disestablished at one place\nand established\t at another place, no exercise of a judicial\nor quasi-judicial function is involved. All that is involved\nis the\tdeclaration by a notification of the Government that\na certain  place shall\tbe a  principal market\tyard  for  a\nmarket\tarea,\tupon  which  declaration  certain  statutory\nprovisions  at\t once  spring\tinto  action   and   certain\nconsequences prescribed\t by statute  follow  forthwith.\t The\nmaking\tof  the\t declaration  in  this\tcontext\t is  an\t act\nlegislative  in\t  character  and   does\t not   obligate\t the\nobservance of the rules of natural justice. [891C-F]\n     Baits v.  Lord Hailsham  (1972) 1\tWLR 1373  & Tulsipur\nSugar Co.  v. Notified\tArea Committee<\/a>\t[1980]\t2  SCR\t1111\nreferred to.\n     9.\t The  seeming  confusion  in  the  large  number  of\nnotifications issued by the Government from time to time was\nnot the\t result of  any arbitrary  or erratic  action on the\npart of\t the Government\t but was  the result  of a desire to\naccommodate the traders as much as possible. The old markets\nhad existed from ancient days and it had become necessary to\nestablish  modern   market  yards   with  conveniences\t and\nfacilities. When  this was  sought to  be  done\t there\twere\nrepresentations by  the traders\t and the  Government thought\nthat it was advisable to give the traders sufficient time to\nenable them  to prepare\t themselves to\tmove  into  the\t new\nmarket yards.  The  notifications  establishing\t new  market\nyards were  therefore, cancelled  and the  old markets\twere\nallowed to  function for  sometime. Later  when the time was\nthought to  be ripe,  notifications establishing  new market\nyards were once again issued. [893 F, D-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition Nos. 692,937-1063,
\n1111-1115, 1558\/80, 5441-62, 6217\/80 and 6529-6551\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     (Under Article 32 of the Constitution.)
\n\t\t\t    AND
\n     Civil Appeal Nos. 3297 & 2689 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals by\t special leave\tfrom the Judgment and Orders
\ndated 25-5-1979\t & 22-1-1979  of the Karnataka High Court in
\nRegular Second\tAppeal No.  551\/77 &  W.P. Nos.\t 551\/77\t and
\n6555\/78.\n<\/p>\n
871<\/span><\/p>\n
\t\t\t    WITH
\n     Civil Appeal No. 1895 of 1979.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tspecial leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 22-1-1979\t of the\t Karnataka High\t Court in  W.P.\t No.
\n35\/76.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    AND
\n     Civil Appeal No. 1507 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeal by\tSpecial Leave  from the\t Judgment and  Order
\ndated 2-5-1980\tof  the\t Patna\tHigh  Court  in\t Civil\tWrit
\nJurisdiction Case No. 394 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    AND
\n     Civil Appeal No. 1715-1716 of 1980.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals by special from the Judgements and Orders dated
\n30-8-1979 and  2-5-1980 of  the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C.
\nNos. 5136\/78 & 840\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     S. V.  Gupte, V.  M. Tarkunde,  Soli J. Sorabjee, K. K.
\nVenugopal,  K.\t N.  Bhatt  and\t T.  S.\t Sundrajan<\/a>  for\t the
\nPetitioners in WP Nos. 692, 937-1063 and 1111-1115\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     Dr. Y.  S. Chitale,  R. P. Bhatt and A. K. Goel for the
\nPetitioner in W. P. No. 1558\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     S. G.  Sundraswamy, Ravindran, Vijay Kumar Verma and K.
\nN. Bhat for the Appellant in CA Nos. 1895\/79 & 2689\/79.\n<\/p>\n
     V. M.  Tarkunde, K.  R. Nagaraja,\tP. K.  Rao and Aloke
\nBhattacharya for the Appellant in CA No. 3297\/79.\n<\/p>\n
     Soli J.  Sorabjee, B.  P. Maheshwari,  Suresh Sethi and
\nMiss Asha Jain for the Appellant in CA No. 1507\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     Lal Narain\t Sinha, attorney  General, O. P. Rana and M.
\nN. Shroff  for Respondent No. 1 in WP Nos. 692, 937-1063 and
\n1111-1115\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     A. K. Goyal for the Petitioner in WP 5441-62 of 1980.
\n     K. K.  Singhvi, A.\t K. Gupta,  Brij Bhushan  and N.  P.
\nMahindru for  RR-3 in  WP 692, 937-1063, 1111-1115\/80 and RR
\nin WP No. 1558\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     Lal Narain\t Sinha, Attorney  General and  N. Nettar for
\nRR-1 in CA 1895 and 2689\/79.\n<\/p>\n
     B. Keshava\t Iyengar, Advocate General and N. Nettar for
\nState of Karnataka in CA 1895 & 2689\/79.\n<\/p>\n
872<\/span><\/p>\n
     H. B.  Datar, Miss\t Madhu Moolchandani  and R. B. Datar
\nfor RR-2 in CA 1895 & 2689\/79.\n<\/p>\n
     K. K.  Singhvi, N.\t P. Mahindru  and A. K. Gupta for RR
\nNo. 3 in WP Nos. 5441-62\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     S. S.  Javali, B.\tP.  Singh,  Ranjit  Kumar  and\tRavi
\nPrakash for Intervener in CA Nos. 1895\/79.\n<\/p>\n
     Lal Narain\t Sinha, Attorney General, R. B. Mehto, B. P.
\nSinha and  Naresh K.  Sharma for  the Intervener  in WP\t No.
\n692\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     Lal Narain\t Sinha, Attorney General, R. B. Mehto, B. P.
\nSingh Ravi Prakash, Ranjit Kumar and Naresh K. Sharma for RR
\n3-5 in CA 1507\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     K. G.  Bhagat and D. Goburdhan for State of Bihar in CA
\n1507\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     S. S.  Ray and  M. P. Jha for the Appellant in CA 1715-
\n1716\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     Lal Narain\t Sinha, Attorney General, R. B. Mehto, B. P.
\nSingh. Ravi  Prakash, Ranjit  Kumar, Naresh K. Sharma and J.
\nS. Rathore for RR 3-5 in CA Nos. 1715-1716\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     V. M.  Tarkunde, K.  R. Nagaraja,\tP. K.  Rao and Aloke
\nBhattacharya for Petitioner in WP 6217\/80, 6529-6551\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     H. B.  Datar, Miss\t Madhu Moolchandani and R. B. Dattar
\nfor the Respondent (Market Committee).\n<\/p>\n
     H. B. Datar and N. Nettar for RR (State of Karnataka).
\n     K. G. Bhagat and D. Goburdhan for the State of Bihar in
\nCA 1715-1716\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     V. M. Tarkunde, P. K. Rao, Aloke Bhattacharya and K. R.
\nNagaraja for the Petitioner in WP 6529-51\/80.\n<\/p>\n
     N. Nettar for the Respondent in WP No. 6529-51\/80.
\n     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     CHINNAPPA REDDY,  J. Reluctant  traders,  unwilling  to
\nmove their  places of  business into  the markets  or market
\nyards, as  they are  differently called\t in  the  States  of
\nMaharashtra, Bihar  and\t Karnataka,  set  up  by  respective
\nMarket Committees  under various  State Agricultural Produce
\nMarketing Acts,\t offer their  resistance through  these Writ
\nPetitions and  Civil Appeals. We will first recite the facts
\nin one\tof the\tcases (Writ  Petition No.  692 of  1980) and
\nthereafter consider  the questions raised in that as well as
\nthe other cases. The Petitioner in Writ Peti-\n<\/p>\n
873<\/span><\/p>\n
tion No.  692 of  1980 is  a trader  presently\tcarrying  on
\nbusiness in  ‘Gur’ and\tother commodities  at  1221  Bhavani
\nPeth, Pune.  In exercise  of the  powers conferred  by\tSec.
\n4A(2) of  the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939,
\nby a  notification dated July 6, 1961, the locality known as
\nBhavanipeth and\t Nanapeth of  the Pune\tCity was declared as
\none of\tthe principal  market  yards  for  the\tmarket\tarea
\nconsisting of  Pune City and Haveli Talukas. The market area
\nhad been  so declared  by a  notification dated May 1, 1957,
\npursuant to  a declaration  that it was intended to regulate
\nthe purchase  and sale\tof ‘gur’  in the  market  area.\t The
\nBombay Agricultural  Produce Markets Act, 1939, was repealed
\nand  replaced\tby  the\t  Maharashtra  Agricultural  Produce
\nMarketing (Regulation)\tAct, 1963. By Sec. 64 of the Act the
\nnotifications previously issued etc. under the provisions of
\nthe repealed Act were kept alive for the purposes of the new
\nAct. On\t March 23,  1971, the present Market Committee known
\nas Krishi  Utpanna Bazar Samiti, Pune, was constituted under
\nSec. 4(1)  of the  1963 Act. On April 21, 1971, the Director
\nof Agricultural Marketing published a notification declaring
\nhis intention  to regulate  marketing of  a large  number of
\ncommodities in\tthe market  area of  Haveli  and  Pune\tCity
\nTaluks. On  October 4,\t1975, the  Director of\tAgricultural
\nMarketing, Maharashtra\tState, exercising  his powers  under
\nSec. 5(2)  of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing
\n(Regulation) Act,  1963,  declared  the\t locality  known  as
\nMarket Yard Gultekadi as the principal market for the market
\narea for  the marketing\t of various commodities specified in
\nthe notification.  Thereafter on October 8, 1975, a Circular
\nwas issued  to all  Adatis, merchants,\tand licence holders,
\nparticularly  wholesale\t  dealers  dealing  in\tGur,  Halad,
\nDhania,\t etc.\tin  the\t  vicinity  of\tBhavanipeth-Nanapeth
\ninforming them\tthat Bhavanipeth-Nanapeth will cease to be a
\nmarket from  the midnight  of October  13, 1975 and that the
\nmarket yard  Gultekadi had  been declared  as the  principal
\nmarket for the market area. The circular went on to say that
\nanyone carrying\t on business  anywhere except  Gultekadi was
\nliable to  be prosecuted.  The result  of  the\tnotification
\ndated October  4, 1975,\t and the  Circular dated  October 8,
\n1975 was  that it was not permissible for anyone to carry on
\ntrade  in  any\tof  the\t notified  agricultural\t commodities
\noutside the  Gultekadi market  yard on and after October 14,
\n1975. It  meant that traders like the petitioner who had for
\ngenerations been  carrying on  business in these commodities
\nin Bhavanipeth-Nanapeth\t had perforce to move into Gultekadi
\nmarket\tyard  if  they\twanted\tto  stay  in  the  business.
\nConsequent upon\t representations made  by the Pune Merchants
\nChamber and  the interim  order in  a Writ petition filed in
\nthe Bombay  High Court\tby the Chamber the date notified for
\nthe commencement  of the functioning of the Principal Market
\nin Gulekadi
\n874<\/span>
\nwas postponed from time to time, Finally, by a public notice
\ndated March  6,\t 1980,\tall  wholesale\ttraders,  commission
\nagents\tand   others  dealing  in  agricultural\t produce  in
\nBhavanipeth-Nanapeth and  surrounding  areas  were  informed
\nthat with effect form March 17, 1980, wholesale trade in the
\nregulated agricultural\tproduce could  be carried  on in the
\nGultekadi market  yard only.  The petitioner seeks to resist
\nthe  situation\tthus  sought  to  be  forced  upon  him\t and
\nchallenges the\tnotification dated  October 4, 1975, and the
\nconsequential notices  requiring him to carry on business in
\nregulated agricultural\tproduce in the Gultekadi market yard
\nand at\tno other place. Similarly, in Writ Petition Nos. 937
\nto 1063 of 1980 and Writ Petition Nos. 1111 to 1115 of 1980,
\n132 other  traders who are presently carrying on business in
\nthe existing  market of\t Bhavanipeth-Nanapeth  question\t the
\nnotification and the notices following the notification.\n<\/p>\n
     In Writ  Petition Nos. 1558 of 1980 and 5441 to 5462 of
\n1980 the  petitioners are  wholesale traders  in onions\t and
\npotatoes who  carry on\ttheir business\tin the\tMaulana Azad
\nRoad Market  in Bombay. They complain against a notification
\ndated December\t5, 1978\t by which it was declared that after
\nJanuary 26,  1979, marketing of potatoes and onions shall be
\ncarried on at the Principal Market at Turbhe and at no other
\nplace. It  appears  that  initially,  for  the\tmarket\tarea
\ncomprising  Greater  Bombay  and  Turbhe  Village  in  Thana
\nTaluka, the  newly established market at Turbhe was declared
\nas the\tPrincipal Market and the existing markets at Maulana
\nAzad Road  and Mahatma Phule Mandai were declared subsidiary
\nmarkets. This  was by a notification dated January 15, 1977.
\nLater by  the impugned\tnotification dated December 5, 1978,
\nthe subsidiary\tmarkets were  abolished and  the  market  at
\nTurbhe alone  was declared  as the  Principal Market for the
\narea comprising Greater Bombay and Turbhe village.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  argued on\tbehalf of  the petitioners  that the
\nMaharashtra Agricultural  Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act
\n1963 did  not invest the Director of Marketing or the Market
\nCommittee with\tany power to compel a trader to transfer his
\nactivity from a previously existing market to a principal or
\nsubsidiary market established under Sec. 5 of the Act. There
\nwas no\tprovision in  the Act  by which\t a trader  could  be
\ncompelled to  market declared  agricultural produce  in\t the
\nprincipal or  subsidiary market established under Sec. 5 and
\nin no other place. This was a feature which distinguished it
\nfrom the  Bombay Act  of 1939  and the\tAgricultural Produce
\nMarketing  Acts\t  of  some  other  States.  Rule  5  of\t the
\nMaharashtra  Agricultural   Produce  Marketing\t(Regulation)
\nRules, 1967, which purported to provide that no person shall
\nmarket any declared agricultural produce
\n875<\/span>
\nin any\tplace in  a market  area other\tthan  the  Principal
\nMarket or  subsidiary market  established therein  was ultra
\nvires. It  was also  submitted\tthat  once  a  principal  or
\nsubsidiary market  was established at one place there was no
\nprovision  in\tthe  Act  which\t enabled  the  principal  or
\nsubsidiary market to be transferred to another place. In any
\nevent it was urged that the notification was an unreasonable
\nrestriction on\tthe right  of the  petitioners to  carry  on
\ntheir trade.  It was also submitted. and this appeared to be
\nthe main  thrust of  the argument of most of the counsel for
\nthe  various   petitioners  that   the\tAct  did  not  cover
\ntransactions between  trader and  trader and transactions by
\nwhich the  agricultural produce was imported into the market
\narea from outside the market area. Secs. 5 and 6 and Rules 5
\nand 6  had to  be so  read-the\tlanguage  permitted  such  a
\nconstruction-as to  make a  distinction between\t a  sale  of
\nagricultural produce  by a producer to a trader which had to
\nbe within  a market  and a  subsequent sale by a trader to a
\ntrader which  could be\tanywhere in  the market area. It was
\nsubmitted that if Sections 5 and 6 and Rules 5 and 6 were to
\nbe construed  as compelling  transactions between trader and
\ntrader also to take place within a market they were invalid.
\nIn the\tpetitions of  the Bombay  merchants it\twas  further
\nurged  that  Sec.  13(1A)  which  was  a  special  provision
\ndeclaring Greater  Bombay and  Turbhe village  a Market Area
\nwas unreasonable and invalid.\n<\/p>\n
     For a  proper appreciation\t of the submissions made, it
\nis necessary  to refer to some of the relevant provisions of
\nthe Maharashtra\t Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation)
\nAct 1963  and the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing
\n(Regulation) Rules  1967. The  long title  of the Act is “An
\nAct to\tregulate the  marketing of  agricultural and certain
\nother produce  in market areas and markets to be established
\ntherefor  in   the  State;  to\tconfer\tpowers\tupon  Market
\nCommittees to  be constituted  in connection  with or acting
\nfor purposes  connected\t with  such  markets;  to  establish
\nMarket Fund  for purposes  of the  Market Committees  and to
\nprovide for  purposes connected with the matters aforesaid”.
\nSec. 2(1)(h)  defines “market”\tas  meaning  “any  principal
\nmarket established  for the  purposes of this Act and also a
\nsubsidiary market”.  Sec. 2(1)(i)  defines “market  area” as
\nmeaning “an  area specified in a declaration made under Sec.
\n4”. Sec.  2(1)(o)  defines  “retail  sale”  as\tmeaning\t “in
\nrelation to  any agricultural  produce, sale of that produce
\nnot exceeding  such quantity  as a  Market Committee  may by
\nbye-laws determine  to\tbe  a  retail  sale”.  Sec.  2(1)(t)
\ndefines “trader”  as meaning  “a person\t who buys  or  sells
\nagricultural produce,  as a  principal or as duly authorised
\nagent  of   one\t or  more  persons”.  Sec.  3  empowers\t the
\nGovernment  to\tdeclare\t its  intention\t of  regulating\t the
\nmarketing of  such agricultural produce, in such area as may
\nbe
\n876<\/span>
\nspecified in  a notification to be published in the official
\nGazette. Objections  or suggestions which may be received by
\nthe State  Government within  a specified  period are  to be
\nconsidered by  the  State  Government.\tThereafter,  Sec.  4
\nprovides, the  State  Government  may  declare,\t by  another
\nnotification that  the marketing of the agricultural produce
\nspecified in  the notification.\t The area specified shall be
\nthe market  area. Sec.\t5(1) provides  that there shall be a
\nprincipal market for every market area and there may also be
\none of\tmore  subsidiary  markets.  Sec\t 5(2)  empowers\t the
\nDirector, by  notification, to\testablish any  place in\t any
\nmarket area  to be  the principal  market for the marking of
\nagricultural  produce\tspecified   in\t the   notification.
\nSubsidiary markets  may also be established likewise. Sec. 5
\nis important and it may, therefore, be extracted here:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “5(1)\t For  every  market  area,  there  shall  be
\n     established  a  principal\tmarket,\t and  there  may  be
\n     established one or more subsidiary markets.
\n\t  (2) The  Director shall, as soon as possible after
\n     the issue\tof a  notification under  sub-section (1) of
\n     section 4,\t by a  notification in\tthe Official Gazette
\n     establish\t any   place   (including   any\t  structure,
\n     enclosure, open  place or\tlocality) in any market area
\n     to be  the principal  market for  the marketing  of the
\n     agricultural produce  specified in\t that  notification;
\n     and  may\tby  the\t  same\tnotification,\tor  by\tlike
\n     notification, establish in any other like places in the
\n     market area,  subsidiary markets  for the\tmarketing of
\n     such agricultural produce”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Sec. 6\tprovides that,\tno person shall use any place in the
\nmarket area  for the  marketing of the declared agricultural
\nproduce or  operate in\tthe market  area or  in\t any  market
\ntherein as  a trader,  commission agent,  broker, processor,
\nweighman, measurer,  surveyor, warehouseman  or in any other
\ncapacity in  relation  to  the\tmarketing  of  the  declared
\nagricultural produce,  on and  after the  date on  which the
\ndeclaration under  Sec. 4(1)  is made,\texcept in conformity
\nwith the  terms and  conditions of  a licence granted by the
\nMarket Committee  or by the Director when a Market Committee
\nhas not\t yet started functioning. It is important to mention
\nhere that  Sec. 6(1)  is expressly made subject to the rules
\nproviding  for\tregulating  the\t marketing  of\tagricultural
\nproduce in  any place  in the  market area.  Sec. 6(2)\talso
\nprovides that  Sec. 6(1) shall not apply to sales by retail;
\nsales by  an agriculturist  who sells  his own\tproduce; and
\nsales
\n877<\/span>
\nby  a\tperson\tto   another  for   the\t latter’s   personal
\nconsumption. Sec. 6 also may be extracted here:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(6) (1) Subject to the provisions of this section
\n     and of the rules providing for regulating the marketing
\n     of agricultural  produce in  any place  in\t the  market
\n     area, no  person shall,  on and after the date on which
\n     the  declaration  is  made\t under\tsub-section  (1)  of
\n     section 4,\t without, or  otherwise than  in  conformity
\n     with the terms and conditions of, a licence (granted by
\n     the Director  when\t a  Market  Committee  has  not\t yet
\n     started functioning;  and in  any other  case,  by\t the
\n     Market Committee) in this behalf,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (a) use  any place  in the  market  area  for\t the
\n     marketing of the declared agricultural produce, or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  (b) operate  in the  market area  or in any market
\n     therein  as   a  trader,\tcommission  agent,   broker,
\n     processor, weighman,  measurer, surveyor,\twarehouseman
\n     or in  any other  capacity in relation to the marketing
\n     of the declared agricultural produce.
\n\t  (2) Nothing  in sub-section  (1)  shall  apply  to
\n     sales by  retail; sales  by an  agriculturist who sells
\n     his own  produce; nor  to sales  by a  person where  he
\n     himself, sells  to another\t who buys  for his  personal
\n     consumption or  the consumption  of any  member of\t his
\n     family.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Sec. 7\tempowers the Market Committee, subject to rules made
\nin that\t behalf and  after making  such enquiry as it thinks
\nfit to\tgrant or renew a licence for the use of any place in
\nthe market area for marketing of the agricultural produce or
\nfor operating  therein as a trader etc. The Market Committee
\nmay refuse  to grant  or renew any licence for reasons to be
\nrecorded in  writing. Sec. 8 enables the Market Committee to
\nsuspend or  cancel any\tlicence. Sec. 10 makes provision for
\nthe constitution  of a Board by the Market Committee for the
\nsettlement of  disputes between\t buyers and sellers or their
\nagents inclusive  of disputes  relating to  quality, weight,
\npayment etc.  Sec. 11  provides for  the establishment\tof a
\nMarket Committee by the State Government. Sections 12 and 13
\ndeal with  the\tincorporation  and  constitution  of  Market
\nCommittees. Sec.  13(1A) makes special provision for Greater
\nBombay and  Turbhe  village.  The  area\t comprising  Greater
\nBombay and  Turbhe village is deemed to be a market area for
\nthe  purposes\tof  the\t  Act  and  a  Market  Committee  is
\nconstituted with  a different  composition from other Market
\nCommittees.\n<\/p>\n
878<\/span><\/p>\n
Sec.  29   enumerates  the   powers  and  duties  of  Market
\nCommittees.  It\t is  the  duty\tof  a  Market  Committee  to
\nimplement the  provisions of the Act, the rules and bye-laws
\nmade  thereunder   in  the  market  area,  to  provide\tsuch
\nfacilities for\tmarketing of agricultural produce therein as
\nthe Director  may from\ttime to\t time direct  and to do such
\nother  acts   as  may\tbe  required   in  relation  to\t the
\nsuperintendence, direction  and control\t of markets  or\t for
\nregulating marketing of agricultural produce in any place in
\nthe market  area. The  Market Committee is also empowered to
\nmaintain and manage the market, including admissions to, and
\nconditions for\tuse of,\t markets; to  regulate marketing  of
\nagricultural produce  in the  market area  of the market; to
\nestablish centres  for the  collection of  such agricultural
\nproduce in  the market\tarea as\t the  State  Government\t may
\nnotify from  time to time; to collect, maintain, disseminate
\nand supply  information\t in  respect  of  production,  sale,
\nstorage, processing,  prices and  movement  of\tagricultural
\nproduce (including information relating to crops, statistics
\nand marketing  intelligence); to  take all possible steps to
\nprevent adulteration; to promote grading and standardization
\nof agricultural\t produce; and,\tto enforce the provisions of
\nthe Act, rules and bye-laws and conditions of licences. Sec.
\n10A enables  the Market Committee to open Collection Centres
\nfor marketing  of notified  produce. Any  person wishing  to
\nsell any  notified produce  in a market area may tender such
\nproduce at the collection centre. Sec. 31 makes it competent
\nto a  Market Committee\tto levy\t and collect fees from every
\npurchaser of  agricultural produce  marketed in\t the  market
\narea. Sec.  35\tenables\t a  Market  Committee  to  employ  a
\nSecretary and  such other  officers and\t servants as  may be
\nnecessary  for\t the  management  of  the  market,  for\t the
\ncollection,  maintenance,   dissemination  and\t supply\t  of
\ninformation relating  to  crops,  statistics  and  marketing
\nintelligence and  for carrying out its duties under the Act.
\nSec. 36 provides for the creation of Market Fund and Sec. 37
\nenumerates the\tpurposes for  which the\t Market Fund  may be
\nexpended. Among those purposes are the acquisition of a site
\nor  sites  for\tthe  market,  maintenance,  development\t and
\nimprovement of\tthe market,  construction of, and repairs to
\nbuildings necessary  for the purposes of such market and the
\nhealth,\t convenience   and  safety   of\t persons  using\t it,
\nmaintenance of standard weights and measures, collection and
\ndissemination of  information, propaganda  for\tagricultural
\nimprovement and orderly marketing etc. etc. Section 60 makes
\na  contravention   of  the   provisions\t of   Section\t6(1)
\npunishable. Section 60 empowers the State Government to make
\nrules for carrying into effect the purposes of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Pursuant to  the power  conferred by  Sec.\t 60  of\t the
\nMaharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act,
\n1963, rules have
\n879<\/span>
\nbeen made. Rule 5 prescribes that no person shall market any
\ndeclared agricultural  produce in any place in a market area
\nother than principal market or subsidiary market established
\ntherein. The  proviso  to  Rule\t 5  enables  the  Direct  of
\nMarketing to authorise a Market Committee to permit a trader
\nor Commission  Agent to market declared agricultural produce
\nor to  permit any other market functionary to operate at any
\nplace within  the market  area as  may be  mentioned by\t the
\nMarket Committee in the licence granted to such trader. This
\nis obviously, a reserve power vested in the Market Committee
\nto be exercised but in exceptional cases, and, on an express
\nauthorisation from  the Director,  subject to  the terms and
\nconditions imposed  by him.  Rule 6 prescribes the procedure
\nby which  any person  desiring to  use any place in a market
\narea for  marketing of\tany declared agricultural produce or
\nfor operating  therein as  a  trader,  commission  agent  or
\nbroker may  obtain a  licence. He  is required\tto  make  an
\napplication in\tthe prescribed\tform  and  submit  with\t the
\napplication a  solvency certificate,  cash security  or bank
\nguarantee and  a character  certificate. The Director or the
\nMarket Committee  as the  case may  be, may grant or renew a
\nlicence,  after\t satisfying  himself  or  itself  about\t the
\nsolvency certificate,  cash security  or bank guarantee, the
\ncapacity of  the applicant  for providing adequate equipment
\nfor smooth  conduct of\tthe business  and the conduct of the
\napplicant. If  the licence  is refused, reasons are required
\nto be  recorded in  writing. Rule  7 deals with the grant of
\nlicences to  warehousemen, measurers, surveyors, processors,
\nweighmen, etc.\tRule 8(2) bans the employment of a broker in
\nrelation to  marketing of  any declared agricultural produce
\nexcept in  relation to marketing of such produce by a trader
\nwith another  trader. Rule 12 stipulates that every declared
\nagricultural produce  shall be\tsold by public auction. Rule
\n15  requires  every  declared  agricultural  produce  to  be
\nweighed by licensed weighmen or measurer. Rule 16, 17 and 18
\ndeal with  the preparation of records in connection with the
\ntransactions of\t purchase of  declared agricultural produce.
\nRule 20\t obliges every\tpurchaser of  declared\tagricultural
\nproduce to  make payment  to the  seller or  his  commission
\nagent immediately  after the  sale on  the same day. Rule 21
\nprohibits the  adulteration of declared agricultural produce
\nin the\tmarket area  or market. Rule 22 provides for grading
\nand  standardization   of  agricultural\t  produce.  Rule  25
\nprovides for  inspection of  weights and  measures. Rule  27
\nrequires the  Market Committee\tto publish  a daily  list of
\nprices of  the different  varieties and\t grades of  declared
\nagricultural produce  marketed in the market area. There are
\nseveral other rules providing for the constitution of Market
\nCommittees, preparation of their budgets, discharge of their
\nother duties  etc., but\t for  our  purpose  it\tmay  not  be
\nnecessary to refer to them.\n<\/p>\n
880<\/span><\/p>\n
     We have  seen that\t Sec. 5 authorises the establishment
\nof a  principal market\tand one\t or more subsidiary markets.
\nQuite obviously the power to establish a principal market or
\na  subsidiary\tmarket\tcarries\t  with\tit   the  power\t  to
\ndisestablish (if  such\tan  expression\tmay  be\t used)\tsuch
\nmarket. Quite  obviously again, the power given by Sec. 5 to
\nestablish a  principal or subsidiary market may be exercised
\nfrom time  to time.  These follow from Sections 14 and 21 of
\nthe Maharashtra\t General Clauses  Act. So,  Sec.  5  of\t the
\nMaharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act,
\n1963, read  with Sections  14  and  21\tof  the\t Maharashtra
\nGeneral Clauses\t Act vest  enough power\t in the\t Director to
\nclose an  existing market  and establish  it elsewhere. Sec.
\n4A(2) of  the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939,
\n(the Act which preceded the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce
\nMarketing Regulation) Act, empowered the State Government to
\ndeclare any  enclosure, building  or locality  in any market
\narea to\t be a  principal market\t yard for the area and other
\nenclosures, buildings  or localities  to be one or more sub-
\nmarket yards for the area. There was a proviso to Sec. 4A(2)
\nwhich provided\tthat out  of the  enclosures,  buildings  or
\nlocalities  declared   to  be\tmarket\tyards\tbefore\t the
\ncommencement of\t the  Bombay  Agricultural  Produce  Markets
\n(Amendment) Act\t 1954, one  shall  be  declared\t to  be\t the
\nprincipal market  yard for  the market\tarea and  others, if
\nany, to\t be one or more sub-market yards for the area Before
\nthe 1954 amendment Act Vakhar Bagh was the market yard for a
\ncertain market\tarea.  In  October  1954,  (after  the\t1954
\namendment came\tinto force)  Vakhar Bagh was declared as the
\nprincipal market  yard for the market area under the proviso
\nto  S.\t 4A(2)\tof   the  Act.\tA  few\tdays  later  another
\nnotification was  issued declaring  some other\tplace as the
\nprincipal market  yard for  the market area. Vakhar Bagh was
\nnot even  declared as a sub-market yard. The effect was that
\nVakhar Bagh Market Yard ceased to be a market yard. This was
\nquestioned in  Bapubhai Ratanchand  Shah  v.  The  State  of
\nBombay. The argument was that Vakhar Bagh had necessarily to
\nbe declared  as a  Principal Market  Yard since there was no
\nsub-market yard\t under the  proviso to\tSec. 4A(2)  and that
\nonce having  been so  declared another market yard could not
\nbe substituted\tin its\tplace. This argument was repelled by
\nChagla, C.  J. and Tendolkar, J. It was observed (at p. 903,\n<\/p>\n
904):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Now, s.  4A(2) confers  upon the  Government\t the
\n     power to declare any enclosure, building or locality in
\n     any market\t area to  be a principal market yard for the
\n     area and  other enclosures,  buildings or localities to
\n     be one or more sub-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
881<\/span><\/p>\n
     market yards  for the  area. It is clear that by reason
\n     of s.  14 of  the General Clauses Act any power that is
\n     conferred on  Government can  be exercised from time to
\n     time as  occasion\trequires.  Therefore,  it  would  be
\n     clearly competent\tto the\tState Government  to declare
\n     from time\tto time which should be the principal market
\n     yard and  which should  be sub-market yards. It is also
\n     clear under  s. 21 of the General Clauses Act that when
\n     a power  to issue notifications, orders, rules, or bye-
\n     laws is  conferred, then that power includes a power to
\n     exercise in  the like  manner and\tsubject to  the like
\n     sanction and conditions, if any, to add to, amend, vary
\n     or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws
\n     so\t issued”…………………….  “under  s.  4A(2)
\n     Government can  by issuing\t notifications from  time to
\n     time after\t the principal\tmarket yards which have been
\n     set up  and which\tdid not\t exist before the passing of
\n     the Amending Act”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We agree.  Any other  construction may\tfrustrate  the\tvery
\nobject of the legislation. Nothing may be expected to remain
\nstatic in  this changing  world of  ours. A  market which is
\nsuitably and  conveniently located  today may be found to be
\nunsuitable and\tInconvenient  tomorrow\ton  account  of\t the
\ndevelopment  of\t  the  area  in\t another  direction  or\t the
\ncongestion  which  may\thave  reduced  the  market  into  an
\nImpossible, squalid place or for a variety of other reasons.
\nTo so  interpret the  provisions of the Agricultural Produce
\nMarketing Regulation  Act as  prohibit the  abolition  of  a
\nmarket once  established and  bar the transfer of the market
\nto another  place would,  as we\t said, be to defeat the very
\nobject of  the Act.  Neither the text nor the context of the
\nrelevant provisions  of the  Act warrant  such a prohibition
\nand bar\t and there  is no  reason to  imply any such. On the
\nother hand  Sections 14\t and 21\t of the\t Maharashtra General
\nClauses Act warrant our reading into Sec. 5 a power to close
\na market and establish it elsewhere.\n<\/p>\n
     The  submission   that  Rule   5  of   the\t Maharashtra
\nAgricultural Produce  Marketing Regulation  Rules 1967 which
\nprovides  that\t no  person   shall  market   any   declared
\nagricultural produce  in any  place in\ta market  area other
\nthan the  principal market  or subsidiary market established
\ntherein is  ultra vires, is, in our opinion, equally without
\nforce. Sec.  60 of  the Act empowers the State Government to
\nmake rules for carrying into effect the purposes of the Act.
\nIt cannot  but be said that the establishment of a principal
\nand  subsidiary\t  markets  for\tthe  marketing\tof  declared
\nagricultural  produce\tand  the   bar\t against   marketing
\noperations being carried on elsewhere than in the markets so
\n882<\/span>
\nestablished is\tonly to\t further and  to give  effect to the
\npurposes of  the Act.  The scheme  of the Act shows that the
\nagricultural produce  whose  marketing\tis  proposed  to  be
\nregulated should  first be notified, a market area has to be
\ndeclared in  respect of the notified agricultural produce, a
\nMarket Committee  has to be constituted for the market area,
\na principal  market and\t one or more subsidiary markets have
\nto be  established for\tevery market area, traders etc. have
\nto be  licensed and  the Market\t Committee  is\trequired  to
\nprovide facilities for marketing of agricultural produce, to
\nsuperintend, direct  and control  the markets  and  regulate
\nmarketing of  agricultural produce.  Regulation of marketing
\nof notified  agricultural produce  and the  establishment of
\nprincipal and subsidiary markets are among the prime objects
\nof  the\t Act.  If  for\tthe  more  effective  regulation  of
\nmarketing it  is thought  that all  marketing operations  in
\nrespect of  declared agricultural  produce should be carried
\non only\t in the principal and subsidiary markets established
\nunder the  Act, we  do not  see how  it can possibly be said
\nthat a\trule made  for that purpose is beyond the competence
\nof the\trule making  authority under  the  Act.\t It  is\t not
\ndifficult  to\tvisualise  the\timpossibility  of  effective
\nregulation if marketing operations are allowed to be carried
\non outside the principal and subsidiary markets, anywhere in
\nthe market  area. The submission was that all the regulatory
\nmeasures contemplated  by the  Act  and\t the  rules  may  be
\nenforced   equally    effectively   wherever   business\t  in
\nagricultural produce  is  carried  on  in  the\tmarket\tarea
\noutside the  principal and  subsidiary markets as within the
\nprincipal and  subsidiary markets.  On the face of it, it is
\ndifficult to  accept this  submission. The  regulation\twill
\nbecome impossible  and will  soon be  reduced to  a farce if
\ntraders are  allowed to\t carry on  marketing  operations  in
\nevery nook  and\t corner\t of  the  market  area.\t The  Market
\nCommittee will be forced to employ an unduly large number of
\nofficers who  will have\t to run hither and thither, all over
\nthe market area. The regulation and control will soon become
\nunmanageable. Nor  will the producers’ interests be properly
\nserved. Where  a producer  brings his produce to the market,
\nhe will\t deal face  to face  not with  one but\twith several
\ntraders, with a greater chance of getting the best price for
\nhis produce.  This cannot  happen if he is persuaded to take
\nhis produce to the place of business of an individual trader
\noutside the  principal or  subsidiary  market.\tThere  is  a
\ngreater possibility  of abuse  and greater likelihood of the
\nobject of  the Act  being  frustrated.\tFair  price  to\t the
\nagriculturist will  soon be  a mirage and the evil sought to
\nbe prevented  will persist.  In Kewal Krishan Puri & Anr. v.
\nState of  Punjab  &  Ors.<\/a>(1)  this  Court  had\toccasion  to
\nobserve:\n<\/p>\n
883<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  “No body  can be allowed to establish a purchasing
\n     centre of\this own\t at any place he likes in the market
\n     area without there being such a permission or authority
\n     from the  Market Committee.  After all the whole object
\n     of the  Act is  the  supervision  and  control  of\t the
\n     transactions  of  purchase\t by  the  traders  from\t the
\n     agriculturists in\torder to prevent exploitation of the
\n     latter by\tthe former.  The supervision and control can
\n     be effective  only in  specified localities  and places
\n     and not throughout the extensive market area.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     One of  the submissions of the learned Counsel was that
\nSection 6  of the  Act contemplated  the use of any place in
\nthe  market   area  for\t  the  marketing   of  the  declared
\nagricultural produce  on obtaining a licence from the Market
\nCommittee and,\ttherefore, Rule\t 5 which banned marketing at
\nany place  outside  the\t principal  and\t subsidiary  markets
\nthough\tsuch   place  was   within  the\t  market  area\t was
\ninconsistent with  Section 6  and  hence  ultra\t vires.\t The
\nsubmission  ignores  the  circumstance\tthat  Section  6  is
\napplicable to  both the\t situations  before  and  after\t the
\nestablishments of  markets. Where a market area is specified
\nunder Sec.  4 of the Act but no markets are yet established,
\nmarketing is  regulated by  licensing the traders etc. under
\nSec. 6.\t After markets are established also, traders have to
\nbe licensed  under Sec.\t 6. But Sec. 6 is expressly declared
\nto be  subject to  the rules  providing for  regulating\t the
\nmarketing of agricultural produce in any place in the market
\narea.  Rule  5\tis  a  rule  providing\tfor  regulating\t the
\nmarketing of  agricultural produce  in the  market  area  by
\nstipulating that  the marketing\t shall\tbe  carried  in\t the
\nmarket established in the market area.\n<\/p>\n
     Section 6\tis, therefore,\tsubject to Rule 5. There can
\nbe no  question of  any inconsistency  between Section 6 and
\nRule 5.\n<\/p>\n
     Yet another  submission of the learned counsel was that
\nthe Bombay  Agricultural Produce  Markets Act  1939 and\t the
\nAgricultural Produce  Marketing Acts of other States such as
\nKarnataka provided  or indicated  by express  provision that
\nonce a\tmarket was  established it  was not  permissible  to
\nmarket or  trade in agricultural produce outside the market,
\nand that  the absence  of such\tan express  provision in the
\nMaharashtra Act\t showed that no such ban was contemplated by
\nthe Act. We are unable to agree with the submission. Absence
\nof an  express provision in the Act itself merely means that
\ngreater latitude  is given  to the  rule making authority to
\nintroduce regulation  of marketing  by stages and to ban all
\nmarketing activity outside the market. The latitude given to
\nthe rule making authority cannot lead to the
\n884<\/span>
\ninference that\tthe rule  making authority  has no  power to
\nmake a\trule banning marketing activities outside the market
\nonce the  market is  established, even\twhen such  a ban  is
\nfound to be necessary.\n<\/p>\n
     We therefore,  hold that  the rule\t prescribing that no
\nmarketing operation  in any  declared  agricultural  produce
\nshall be  carried on  outside the  principal  or  subsidiary
\nmarkets is  consistent and  in consonance with the scheme of
\nthe Act\t and is\t within the  competence of  the rule  making
\nauthority and  that it is reasonable. Next we pass on to the
\nmain submission\t made on  behalf of the petitioners that the
\ntransactions between  trader and  trader and transactions by
\nwhich the  agricultural produce was imported into the market
\narea from  outside the\tmarket area were outside the purview
\nof the\tAct and\t that if  Sec. 5 and Rule 5 were intended to
\ncover such  transactions also  they were  invalid. The basic
\nassumption  of\tthe  submission\t was  that  the\t Maharashtra
\nAgricultural Produce  Marketing Regulation Act was conceived
\nin the interests of the agriculturists only and intended for
\ntheir sole  benefit.  This  basic  assumption  is  not\twell
\nfounded. It is true that one of the principal objects sought
\nto be achieved by the Act is the securing of a fair price to
\nthe agriculturist. As the long title of the Act itself says,
\nthe  Act   is  intended\t  to  regulate\t the  marketing\t  of
\nagricultural and  certain other\t produce. The  marketing  of
\nagricultural  produce\tis  not\t  confined  to\t the   first
\ntransaction of\tsale by\t the producer to the trader but must
\nnecessarily  include  all  subsequent  transactions  in\t the
\ncourse of  the movement\t of the\t commodity into the ultimate
\nhands of  the consumer, so long, of course, as the commodity
\nretains its  original  character  as  agricultural  produce.
\nWhile middlemen\t are sought to be eliminated, it is wrong to
\nview the Act as one aimed at legitimate and genuine traders.
\nFar from it. The regulation and control is as much for their
\nbenefit as  it is  for the  benefit of\tthe producer and the
\nultimate consumer.  The elimination  of middlemen is as much
\nin the\tinterest of  the trader\t as it is in the interest of
\nthe producer.  Promotion of  grading and  standardization of
\nagricultural produce  is as  much to  his benefit  as to the
\nbenefit\t of   the  producer  or\t consumer.  So\talso  proper
\nweighment. The\tprovision for settlement of disputes arising
\nout  of\t  transactions\tconnected   with  the  marketing  of
\nagricultural produce  and ancillary  matters is also for the
\nbenefit of  the trader.\t It is\tbecause of these and various
\nother services\tperformed by  the Market  Committee for\t the
\nbenefit of  the trader\tthat the trader is required to pay a
\nfee. It is, therefore, clear
\n885<\/span>
\nthat the  regulation of\t marketing contemplated\t by the\t Act
\ninvolves benefits  to traders too in a large way. It is also
\nclear to  our mind  that  the  regulation  of  marketing  of
\nagricultural produce,  if confined to the sales by producers
\nwithin the  market area\t to traders,  will very soon lead to
\nits circumvention  in the  guise  of  sales  by\t traders  to
\ntraders or  import of  agricultural produce from outside the
\nmarket\tarea   to  within  the\tmarket\tarea.  The  Shirname
\nCommittee which\t was appointed by the Maharashtra Government
\nto review  the working\tof the\tBombay Agricultural  Produce
\nMarketing Act,\t1939 considered\t the matter  and reported as
\nfollows: (para 86):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “They (the  traders)\thave  argued  that  imported
\n     produce has nothing to do with the legislation meant to
\n     confer benefits  on the  agriculturist. We\t are  afraid
\n     that this\tview  is  untenable.  In  our  opinion,\t the
\n     benefits sought  to be  conferred by  the Act  are\t not
\n     compartmental inasmuch  as a  regulated market seeks to
\n     benefit the  agriculturist within\tits area  only.\t The
\n     problem of\t regulation is\tto be  viewed in  the  wider
\n     context.  This   was  well\t  emphasised  by  the  Royal
\n     Commission\t on   Agriculture  which  stated  that\t‘the
\n     establishment of  properly regulated markets can act as
\n     a powerful\t agent in  bringing about  a reform which is
\n     much  needed,   primarily\tin   the  interest   of\t the
\n     cultivator, and  secondly, in  that of  all engaged  in
\n     trade and\tcommerce in  India’. It\t is in\tthis  larger
\n     perspective that  an answer  to the  question is  to be
\n     found. Moreover,  no agricultural\tproduce\t goes  by  a
\n     particular brand  with  the  result  that\tthe  produce
\n     brought   from    a   particular\tsource\t cannot\t  be
\n     distinguished from\t the one  secured from the other. If
\n     the produce  imported from outside the market area were
\n     to be exempted from the scope of the market regulation,
\n     it would only provide an additional opportunity for the
\n     traders to\t circumvent the\t provisions of\tthe Act\t and
\n     Rules even\t in respect  of the agricultural commodities
\n     produced  within\tthe  market   area.  We,  therefore,
\n     recommend that  once a  commodity\tis  regulated  in  a
\n     market,  it   should   be\t subjected   to\t  regulation
\n     irrespective of its source or final destination.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Again they said in paragraph 95 as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “We wish to record here that there appears to be a
\n     doubt  among   the\t traders   as  well  as\t the  Market
\n     Committees about  the  precise  position  of  sales  of
\n     commodities after\tthey are brought from agriculturists
\n     by traders\t vis-a-vis the provisions of the Act and the
\n     Rules. It has been the belief of
\n886<\/span>
\n     the  traders  that\t the  law  is  for  the\t benefit  of
\n     agriculturists and\t on this  ground they  have  pleaded
\n     that  its\tscope  should  be  restricted  only  to\t the
\n     dealings with them. We are afraid that this plea is not
\n     tenable. The  benefit of  a regulated  market  will  no
\n     doubt  primarily\taccrue\tto  the\t agriculturists\t but
\n     traders also  will be  profited by\t it. Furthermore, no
\n     market can\t be regulated  effectively unless  and until
\n     the regulation  covers  all  the  stages  of  marketing
\n     within a particular area. Above all, it is not possible
\n     to\t distinguish   between\tthe   agricultural   produce
\n     subjected to  resale  or  changing\t hands\tbetween\t the
\n     traders  themselves   and\t the   one   sold   by\t the
\n     agriculturists through  the commission  agents  to\t the
\n     traders. We, therefore, recommend that all transactions
\n     including the  resales between  the traders and traders
\n     in respect\t of the\t agricultural commodities, which are
\n     regulated should  be covered  by the Act and the Rules.
\n     Thus in  a regulated  market, trading  in\tagricultural
\n     commodities irrespective of the fact as to whether they
\n     are  produced  in\tthe  market  area  or  sold  by\t the
\n     agriculturists or not, will be brought within the scope
\n     of the legislation.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Nor are\t we without  any guidance  from this Court itself in
\nanswering  the\tquestion  posed.  In  Mohammadbhai  Khudabux
\nChhippa &  Anr. v.  The State  of Gujarat  &  Anr.,<\/a>  it\t was
\npointed out  while dealing with the provisions of the Bombay
\nAgricultural Produce  Markets Act,  1939, as  follows (at p.\n<\/p>\n
899):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “Next it  is urged  that the provisions in the Act
\n     also affect  transaction between  traders and  traders,
\n     and also  affect produce  not grown  within the  market
\n     area if  it  is  sold  in\tthe  market  area.  That  is
\n     undoubtedly so.  But if  control has to be effective in
\n     the  interest   of\t the   agricultural  producer\tsuch
\n     incidental control\t of produce grown outside the market
\n     area and  brought into  the market\t yard  for  sale  is
\n     necessary as  otherwise the provisions of the Act would
\n     be evaded\tby alleging that the particular produce sold
\n     in the  market yard  was not  grown in the market area.
\n     For the  same reasons  transactions between traders and
\n     traders have  to be  controlled, if  the control in the
\n     interest of  agricultural\tproducers  and\tthe  general
\n     public has to be effective. We are therefore of opinion
\n     that the  Act and\tthe Rules  and\tBye-laws  thereunder
\n     cannot be struck down
\n887<\/span>
\n     on\t this\tground.\t The   contention  under  this\thead
\n     therefore must fail”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Again in  Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar & Co. & Ors. v. State of
\nU.P. &\tAnr.,<\/a>(1) dealing  with the contention that fee could
\nbe charged  only on  those transactions\t in which the seller
\nwas the producer and not on any other transaction this Court
\ndisapproved the\t view taken  by the  Mysore High  Court\t and
\napproved the  view taken  by the  Patna High  Court that fee
\ncould be  levied on  a transaction  of\tbuying\tand  selling
\nbetween a  dealer and  a dealer. Dealing with the contention
\nthat the  agricultural produce\tnot produced  in the  market
\narea was outside the purview of the Act, it was observed (at
\np. 1134):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “It  is   also  not\tcorrect\t to   say  that\t the
\n     agricultural produce  must have  been produced  in\t the
\n     market area  in which  the first levy is made. It might
\n     have been\tproduced in  another  market  area  or\teven
\n     outside the State of Uttar Pradesh but if a transaction
\n     of sale  and purchase  takes place\t of an\tagricultural
\n     produce as\t defined in  the  Act  and  covered  by\t the
\n     notification within  a particular\tmarket area then fee
\n     can be charged in relation to the said transaction”.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     One of  the submissions  strenuously pressed  before us
\nwas that  the statute  itself imposed  and provided for such
\nstringent supervision,\tand control, sufficient and more, to
\nregulate transactions  between traders\tand traders, that it
\nwas superfluous\t to insist  that such  transactions do\ttake
\nplace in  the market  only. We do not agree. Human ingenuity
\nis such\t that vents  and escapes will always be found in any
\nsystem of  controls. We\t are unable  to say  that the  other
\nsupervisory measures for which there is provision in the Act
\nare sufficient\tto make\t it unnecessary\t for the  traders to
\nmove their  places of business into the market. No amount of
\nsupervision may be as effective as when all the transactions
\ntake place  within the\tmarket. Nor is effective supervision
\nat all possible if traders are dispersed all over the market
\narea. Every  Market Committee  will  then  require  a  large
\ncontingent of  officers for the purpose of supervision only.
\nThe rendering  of services  to the  traders also will be far
\neasier and,  in the  ultimate analysis,\t it will  be in\t the
\ninterests of  the traders  themselves, at  any rate  in\t the
\ninterests  of\tthe  vast  majority  of\t the  traders,\tthat
\ntransactions between traders and traders also are carried on
\nin the market only. There cannot be any doubt
\n888<\/span>
\nthat localising\t marketing  is\thelpful\t and  necessary\t for
\nregulation and\tcontrol and for providing facilities. If all
\ntransactions are carried on in the market under the watchful
\nand at\tthe same time, helpful vigil of the Market Committee
\nand its\t officers, there  is surely  a greater chance of the
\nsuccess of  the objectives of the statute. We are therefore,
\nnot prepared  to hold that the requirement that the locus of
\nall  transactions  of  sale  and  purchase  of\tagricultural
\nproduce, including  those between  trader and trader, should
\nbe in  the market  is harsh  and an excessive restriction on
\nthe Fundamental Right to carry on trade.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  the submission of the learned counsel that Sec.
\n6 of  the Maharashtra Act made a distinction between (a) the
\nuse of any place in the market area for the marketing of the
\ndeclared agricultural  produce and  (b) the operation in the
\nmarket area or in any market therein as a trader, commission
\nagent,\tbroker,\t  etc.\tin  relation  to  the  marketing  of
\nagricultural produce and that the distinction was in reality
\na distinction between a sale by a producer to a trader and a
\nsubsequent sale\t by a  trader to  a trader. The argument was
\nthat Rule  5 which  banned marketing  of any declared market
\nagricultural produce  in any  place in\ta market  area other
\nthan the  principal market  or subsidiary market established
\ntherein applied\t only to  a sale of the agricultural produce
\nby a  producer to  trade. We  do not see any warrant for the
\nsubmission of  the learned  counsel in the language employed
\nin Sec.\t 6 or  Rule 5. If the legislature or the rule making
\nauthority wanted  to make  a distinction  between a  sale of
\nagricultural produce  by  a  producer  to  a  trader  and  a
\nsubsequent sale\t by a trader to a trader, nothing would have
\nbeen  simpler  than  to\t say  so  instead  of  adopting\t the
\ncircumlocutous way  in which  the learned  counsel claims it
\nhas been  said. The proviso to Rule 5 speaks of operating at
\nany place  within the  market area  by a  trader, commission
\nagent, or other market functionary after obtaining a licence
\nwhile the main provision refers to the marketing of declared
\nagricultural produce at any place in the market area. Surely
\nit cannot  be contended that the proviso is unrelated to the
\nmain   provision.   According\tto   ordinary\tcannons\t  of
\nconstruction the  proper function  of a proviso is to except
\nand deal  with a  case which would otherwise full within the
\ngeneral language of the main enactment. It, therefore, shows
\nthat no such distinction as suggested by the learned counsel
\nfor the\t petitioners was  in the  mind of the legislature or
\nthe rule making authority.\n<\/p>\n
     The onion\tand potato  merchants of  Bombay advanced  a
\nspecial plea  that  Sec.  13(1A)  which\t declared  the\tarea
\ncomprising Greater
\n889<\/span>
\nBombay and  Turbhe village a market area for the purposes of
\nthe Act\t was  invalid  as  it  was  wholly  unreasonable  to
\nconstitute such\t a large area into a single market area. The
\nvalidity of the notification establishing a market at Turbhe
\nwas attacked as unreasonable. It was said that it was unreal
\nand unreasonable  to establish\ta single market for so large
\nan area\t and that,  at such  an inconvenient place as Turbhe
\nvillage. It  has been  explained in  the  counter  affidavit
\nfiled on  behalf of the respondent that the existing markets
\nin Maulana  Azad Road  and Mahatma  Phule Mandal were highly
\ncongested and  located in areas which were over-crowded with
\nthe result  that it took several hours to even unload onions
\nand potatoes  from the\ttrucks which  carried them.  It\t has
\nbecome imperative  in the  public interest  that the markets
\nshould be  shifted from\t Maulana Azad Road and Mahatma Phule
\nMandai. Turbhe\tvillage was  chosen as\tan  area  free\tfrom
\ncongestion and\tconveniently located  as it  was on the main
\ntrunk road  from Pune. It was also very near the other trunk
\nRoad going towards the East. A Railway linking the area with
\nboth the  Western Railway  and the Central Railway net works
\nwas fast  coming up. It was also pointed out that 60% of the
\npopulation of Greater Bombay resided in the Northern suburbs
\nand the\t new market  was much  nearer to the majority of the
\nresidents and  traders of  Greater Bombay.  We are unable to
\nsee anything  unreasonable in  the statutory  declaration of
\nGreater Bombay and Turbhe village as a market area; nor, are
\nwe able\t to  see  anything  unreasonable,  in  view  of\t the
\ncircumstances  mentioned   by  the   respondents,   in\t the
\nestablishment of  a single  market in Turbhe village for the
\nentire market area.\n<\/p>\n
     It was  also said\tthat neither the Gultekdi market nor
\nthe Turbhe  market had\tany convenience\t or facility  or was
\nready for  use on  the date  on which it was notified as the
\nPrincipal Market  for the  concerned  market  area.  On\t the
\nmaterial  placed   before  us  we  are\tsatisfied  that\t all
\nreasonable conveniences\t and facilities are now available in
\nboth the  markets, whatever night have been the situation on
\nthe  respective\t  dates\t of  notification.  We\trefrain\t for
\nembarking into\tan enquiry  as to the situation obtaining on
\nthe dates  of notification. We do say that a place ought not
\nto be  notified as  a market unless it is ready for use as a
\nmarket with  all reasonable  facilities and conveniences but
\nwe do not conceive it to be our duty to pursue the matter to
\nthe extreme  limit of quashing the notification when we find
\nthat all  reasonable facilities\t and  conveniences  are\t now
\navailable. While  a notification  may be  quashed if nothing
\nhas been  done beyond  publishing the notification, in cases
\nwhere some facilities and conveniences
\n890<\/span>
\nhave been  provided but\t not some others which are necessary
\nthe Court  may instead\tof quashing  the  notification\tgive
\nappropriate time-bound\tdirections for\tproviding  necessary
\nfacilities and\tconveniences. On  the facts  of the  present
\ncase, we  are satisfied\t that all  reasonable facilities and
\nconveniences are  now provided.\t We are\t also satisfied that
\nthe traders  have been\tmaking one  desperate attempt  after
\nanother to  avoid moving  into the new markets and they have
\nbeen successful\t in stalling the notifications from becoming
\neffective for quite a number of years.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals from Karnataka
\nState, similar\tquestions have been raised. Though the broad
\nscheme of  the Karnataka  Act is the same as the Maharashtra
\nAct, there are some differences which however are not basic.
\nInstead of  a two  tier scheme,\t Market Area and Markets, as
\nunder the  Maharashtra Act,  the Karnataka  Act has a three-
\ntier scheme,  Market Area, Market and sub-market and market-
\nyard, sub-market  yard and sub-yard. Market Area is a larger
\narea within which smaller areas are declared as a Market and
\nsub-markets. Within  a market  are located a market yard and
\nmarket sub-yards  and within  a sub-market  is located a sub
\nmarket yard.  The ‘market yard’ in the Karnataka Act is what
\ncorresponds to a ‘market’ in the Maharashtra Act. Unlike the
\nMaharashtra Act, the Karnatka Act itself [S. 8(2)] expressly
\nprovides that  no place\t in the\t Market or  the\t sub-market,
\nexcept the  market-yard, sub-yard  or the sub-market yard as
\nthe case  may be,  shall be used for the purchase or sale of
\nnotified agricultural  produce. Originally,  after the words
\n“purchase or  sale of  notified agricultural words” occurred
\nthe words  “belonging to  a producer”  in Section  8(2). The
\nwords “belonging  to a\tproducer” were\tomitted\t by  a\t1976
\namendment  and\t this  makes   the  provisions\tof  S.\t8(2)
\napplicable to  transactions between  trader and\t trader too.
\nThe shifting  of market\t yard from  one place to another and
\nthe application\t of the\t Act to transactions between traders
\nand traders  are what  were principally\t questioned  in\t the
\nKarnataka cases.  Substantially the  same submissions  as in
\nthe Maharashtra\t cases were  made and  we have already dealt
\nwith them.\n<\/p>\n
     We\t my   now  turn\t  to  the  Bihar  cases.  The  Bihar
\nAgricultural Produce  Markets Act, 1960, follows roughly the
\nsame pattern  as the  other Acts.  A market  area has  to be
\nfirst declared\twithin\twhich  the  marketing  of  specified
\nagricultural produce  is proposed to be regulated. For every
\nmarket area  there is  to be a principal market yard and one
\nor more sub market yards. In between the market area and the
\nmarket yard there is to be a market but market does not seem
\nto play\t any part  in the scheme of the Act as it now stands
\nafter the  1974 amendments.  However it\t should be mentioned
\nhere that Rule 80
\n891<\/span>
\nwhich is  still on  the Statute Book, provides that a market
\nshall be  established for  a market  area and that after the
\nestablishment of  a market,  a\tnotification  under  Sec.  5
\n(declaring market yards) shall be issued. Sec. 15 of the Act
\nprovides that  no specified  agricultural produce  shall  be
\nbought or  sold at  any place  within the  market area other
\nthan  the   principal  market\tyard  or   sub-market\tyard
\nestablished  therein   except  such   quantity\tas   may  be
\nprescribed for\tretail sale  or\t personal  consumption.\t The
\narguments advanced  in the  Maharashtra and  Karnataka cases
\nwere advanced  in the  Bihar cases  also.  For\tthe  reasons
\nalready mentioned  we reject  the submission.  In one of the
\nBihar cases it was further submitted that when a market yard
\nwas disestablished  at one  place and established at another
\nplace, it  was the duty of the concerned authority to invite
\nand hear objections. Failure to do so was a violation of the
\nprinciples  of\t natural  justice   and\t  the\tnotification
\ndisestablishing\t the   market  yard   at   one\t place\t and
\nestablishing it\t elsewhere was\ttherefore, bad.\t It was said
\nthat even  as there  was express  provision for inviting and
\nhearing objections before a “market area” was declared under
\nthe Act,  so should objections be invited and heard before a
\n‘market yard’  was established\tat any particular place. The
\nprinciples of  nature justice  demanded it. We are unable to
\nagree. We  are here  not concerned  with the  exercise of  a
\njudicial or quasi-judicial function where the very nature of
\nthe function  involves\tthe  application  of  the  rules  of
\nnatural justice,  or of an administrative function affecting
\nthe rights  of persons,\t wherefore, a duty to act fairly. We
\nare concerned  with legislative\t activity; we  are concerned
\nwith the making of a legislative instrument, the declaration
\nby notification of the Government that a certain place shall
\nbe a  principal market\tyard for  a market  area, upon which
\ndeclaration certain statutory provisions at once spring into
\naction and certain consequences prescribed by statute follow
\nforthwith. The making of the declaration, in the context, is
\ncertainly an  act legislative  in  character  and  does\t not
\noblige the  observance of  the rules  of natural justice. In
\nBates v.  Lord Hailsham,  Megarry J.,  pointed out  that the
\nrules of  natural justice  do  not  run\t in  the  sphere  of
\nlegislation, primary or delegated, and in Tulsipur Sugar Co.
\nv.  Notified   Area  Committee,<\/a>\t  our  brothers\t  Desai\t and
\nVenkataramaiah JJ  approved what was said by Megarry J., and
\napplied it  to the  field of conditional legislation too. In
\nPaul Jackson’s\tNatural Justice\t (Second Edn.),\t it has been
\npointed out (at p.169):\n<\/p>\n
\t  “There is  no doubt  that a Minister, or any other
\n     body, in  making legislation, for example, by statutory
\n     instrument
\n892<\/span>
\n     or by-law,\t is not\t subject to  the  rules\t of  natural
\n     justice- Bates  v.\t Lord  Hailsham\t of  St.  Mayleborne
\n     (1972)  1\tW.L.R.\t1373-any  more\tthan  is  Parliament
\n     itself; Edinburgh and Dalkeith Ry. v. Wauchope (1842) 8
\n     Cl. &  F. 710,  720 per Lord Brougham; British Railways
\n     Board v. Pickin (1974) A.C. 765″.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     Prof. H.  W. R.  Wade  has\t similarly  pointed  in\t his
\nAdministrative Law  (4th Edn.):\t “There is  no right  to  be
\nheard before  the making  of legislation, whether primary or
\ndelegated, unless  it is  provided by  statutes”. There\t is,
\ntherefore, no  substance in  the invocation  of the rules of
\nnatural justice.\n<\/p>\n
     One of  the submissions in the Bihar cases was that the
\ndeclaration of\tplaces as  market yards\t was made in such an
\nerratic fashion that the exercise of the power could only be
\ntermed as  an arbitrary\t misuse of power. The facts in Civil
\nAppeal No.  1507 of  1980 were that on September 16, 1964, a
\ncertain area  was declared  as a  principal market  yard and
\nAmgola,\t Chandwara,   Sarai  Said  Ali\tand  Brahmpura\twere
\ndeclared as  Sub market\t yards. On February 23, 1978 instead
\nof the principal market yard declared by the notification of
\nSeptember 16, 1964, Muradpur Dulla was declared as principal
\nmarket yard. The sub-market yards were abolished. By another
\nnotification dated  April 9,  1979,  all  the  market  yards
\nnotified on  September 16,  1964 were allowed to continue as
\nbefore, but  it was also simultaneously made known that such
\nmarket\tyards\twould  be  closed  on  specified  dates\t and
\nmerchants were\tadvised to  move  their\t business  into\t the
\nMuradpur Dulla\tprincipal market  yard as early as possible.
\nFinally by  a notification  dated July 3, 1979, the previous
\nnotification dated  April 9, 1979 was cancelled and Muradpur
\nDulla market yard was alone notified as the principal market
\nyard. The  facts in  the other\ttwo  appeals  were  that  on
\nSeptember 19, 1963, Gaya town was declared as a market area.
\nOn April  6, 1964,  Chandauti was  declared  as\t the  market
\nproper\tunder\tSec.5(2)(ii)  of   the\tBihar\tAct.  By   a
\nnotification dated  April 7, 1964, Mohalla Purani Godown was
\ndeclared as  principal market  yard and Kedarnath Market was
\ndeclared as  the sub-market  yard for  the market  area.  On
\nOctober 19,  1973, Mohalla  Purani  Godown  was\t once  again
\ndeclared as  the  Principal  Market  Yard.  Subsequently  on
\nFebruary 28,  1978, Chandauti  was declared as the Principal
\nMarket Yard. This meant that Mohalla Purani Godown ceased to
\nbe a  market yard  and Kedarnath  Market ceased to be a sub-
\nmarket\tyard.\tBut,  again   on  April\t  9,  1979,  another
\nnotification was  issued, to  the effect that Mohalla Purani
\nGodown would  continue as the market yard as before. Finally
\non June 27, 1979, Chandauti was
\n893<\/span>
\ndeclared as  the Principal  Market yard\t once more. This was
\nquestioned in  Writ Petitions filed in the Patna High Court.
\nThe Patna High Court rejected all but one of the contentions
\nraised. The  only contention which was accepted was that the
\nprocedure prescribed  by Rule  80 was  not  followed  before
\nChandauti was  declared as  the principal market yard by the
\nnotification dated  February 28,  1978. Rule  80, as already
\nmentioned by  us provides that a market shall be established
\nfor a  market area  and that  after the\t establishment of  a
\nmarket a  notification declaring  the market  yard shall  be
\nissued. The  contention which was accepted was that a market
\nhad not\t been established before a market yard was declared.
\nAgainst the  judgment of  the High  Court the merchants have
\nfiled Civil  Appeal No.\t 1715 of 1980 and the State of Bihar
\nhas filed  Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1980. Not-withstanding the
\nfiling of  the appeal,\tthe State  of Bihar chose to issue a
\nfresh notification  after observing the procedure prescribed
\nby Rule 80. This was again questioned in the High Court. The
\nHigh Court  upheld  the\t notification.\tThe  merchants\thave
\npreferred Civil Appeal No. 1716 of 1980 against the judgment
\nof the\tHigh Court. From the history of events it may appear
\nas if  declarations regarding market yards have been made in
\na most\terratic fashion\t but as\t pointed out  by the learned
\nAttorney General  who appeared for the State of Bihar it was
\nnot madness. There was a method. The old markets had existed
\nfrom ancient  days and\tit had become necessary to establish
\nmodern market  yards with  conveniences and facilities. When
\nthis was sought to be done there were representations by the
\ntraders and  the Government  appears to have thought that it
\nwas advisable  to give the traders sufficient time to enable
\nthem to\t prepare themselves  to move  into  the\t new  market
\nyards. The  notifications establishing new market yards were
\ntherefore, cancelled  and the  old markets  were allowed  to
\nfunction for  some time.  Later when the time was thought to
\nbe ripe,  notifications establishing  new market  yards were
\nonce again  issued. It\tis, therefore  seen that the seeming
\nconfusion was  not the\tresult of  any arbitrary  or erratic
\naction on the part of the Government but was the result of a
\ndesire to  accommodate the  traders as much as possible. We,
\ntherefore, see\tno force  in any  of the submissions made on
\nbehalf of  the petitioners. All the Writ Petitions and Civil
\nAppeals are therefore, dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
N.V.K.\t\t\t   Petitions and Appeals dismissed.\n894<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal & … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc on 17 February, 1981 Equivalent citations: 1981 AIR 1127, 1981 SCR (2) 866 Author: O C Reddy Bench: Reddy, O. Chinnappa (J) PETITIONER: RAMESHCHANDRA KACHARDAS PORWAL & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. ETC. DATE OF JUDGMENT17\/02\/1981 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-51997","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nRameshchandra Kachardas Porwal & ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc on 17 February, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal & ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc on 17 February, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1981-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-05-04T06:53:54+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"61 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal & … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc on 17 February, 1981\",\"datePublished\":\"1981-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-04T06:53:54+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981\"},\"wordCount\":9829,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981\",\"name\":\"Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal & ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc on 17 February, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1981-02-16T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-05-04T06:53:54+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal & … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc on 17 February, 1981\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal & ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc on 17 February, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal & ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc on 17 February, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1981-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-05-04T06:53:54+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"61 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal & … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc on 17 February, 1981","datePublished":"1981-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-04T06:53:54+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981"},"wordCount":9829,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981","name":"Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal & ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc on 17 February, 1981 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1981-02-16T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-05-04T06:53:54+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rameshchandra-kachardas-porwal-vs-state-of-maharashtra-ors-etc-on-17-february-1981#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal & … vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. Etc on 17 February, 1981"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51997","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=51997"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/51997\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51997"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=51997"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=51997"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}