ition Nos
692937 1063 1111 1115 155880 5441 62 621780 and 6529 655180
Under Article 32 of the Constitution AND Civil Appeal Nos 3297  2689 of 1979
Appeals by special leave from the Judgment and Orders dated 25 5 1979  22 1 1979 of the Karnataka High Court in Regular Second Appeal No 55177  WP Nos 55177 and 655578
871 WITH Civil Appeal No 1895 of 1979
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated 22 1 1979 of the Karnataka High Court in WP No 3576
AND Civil Appeal No 1507 of 1980
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 2 5 1980 of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 394 of 1980
AND Civil Appeal No 1715 1716 of 1980
Appeals by special from the Judgements and Orders dated 30 8 1979 and 2 5 1980 of the Patna High Court in CWJC Nos 513678  84080
section V Gupte V M Tarkunde Soli J Sorabjee K K Venugopal K N Bhatt and T section Sundrajan for the Petitioners in WP Nos 692 937 1063 and 1111 111580
Dr Y section Chitale R P Bhatt and A K Goel for the Petitioner in W P No 155880
section G Sundraswamy Ravindran Vijay Kumar Verma and K N Bhat for the Appellant in CA Nos
189579  268979
V M Tarkunde K R Nagaraja P K Rao and Aloke Bhattacharya for the Appellant in CA No 329779
Soli J Sorabjee B P Maheshwari Suresh Sethi and Miss Asha Jain for the Appellant in CA No 150780
Lal Narain Sinha attorney General O P Rana and M N Shroff for Respondent No 1 in WP Nos 692 937 1063 and 1111 111580
A K Goyal for the Petitioner in WP 5441 62 of 1980
K K Singhvi A K Gupta Brij Bhushan and N P Mahindru for RR 3 in WP 692 937 1063 1111 111580 and RR in WP No 155880
Lal Narain Sinha Attorney General and N Nettar for RR 1 in CA 1895 and 268979
B Keshava Iyengar Advocate General and N Nettar for State of Karnataka in CA 1895  268979
872 H B Datar Miss Madhu Moolchandani and R B Datar for RR 2 in CA 1895  268979
K K Singhvi N P Mahindru and A K Gupta for RR No 3 in WP Nos 5441 6280
section section Javali B P Singh Ranjit Kumar and Ravi Prakash for Intervener in CA Nos
189579
Lal Narain Sinha Attorney General R B Mehto B P Sinha and Naresh K Sharma for the Intervener in WP No 69280
Lal Narain Sinha Attorney General R B Mehto B P Singh Ravi Prakash Ranjit Kumar and Naresh K Sharma for RR 3 5 in CA 150780
K G Bhagat and D Goburdhan for State of Bihar in CA 150780
section section Ray and M P Jha for the Appellant in CA 1715 171680
Lal Narain Sinha Attorney General R B Mehto B P Singh
Ravi Prakash Ranjit Kumar Naresh K Sharma and J section Rathore for RR 3 5 in CA Nos
1715 171680
V M Tarkunde K R Nagaraja P K Rao and Aloke Bhattacharya for Petitioner in WP 621780 6529 655180
H B Datar Miss Madhu Moolchandani and R B Dattar for the Respondent Market Committee
H B Datar and N Nettar for RR State of Karnataka
K G Bhagat and D Goburdhan for the State of Bihar in CA 1715 171680
V M Tarkunde P K Rao Aloke Bhattacharya and K R Nagaraja for the Petitioner in WP 6529 5180
N Nettar for the Respondent in WP No 6529 5180
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY J
Reluctant traders unwilling to move their places of business into the markets or market yards as they are differently called in the States of Maharashtra Bihar and Karnataka set up by respective Market Committees under various State Agricultural Produce Marketing Acts offer their resistance through these Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals
We will first recite the facts in one of the cases Writ Petition No 692 of 1980 and thereafter consider the questions raised in that as well as the other cases
The Petitioner in Writ Peti 873 tion No 692 of 1980 is a trader presently carrying on business in Gur  and other commodities at 1221 Bhavani Peth Pune
In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec
4A2 of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1939 by a notification dated July 6 1961 the locality known as Bhavanipeth and Nanapeth of the Pune City was declared as one of the principal market yards for the market area consisting of Pune City and Haveli Talukas
The market area had been so declared by a notification dated May 1 1957 pursuant to a declaration that it was intended to regulate the purchase and sale of gur  in the market area
The Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1939 was repealed and replaced by the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act 1963
By Sec
64 of the Act the notifications previously issued etc
under the provisions of the repealed Act were kept alive for the purposes of the new Act
On March 23 1971 the present Market Committee known as Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samiti Pune was constituted under Sec
41 of the 1963 Act
On April 21 1971 the Director of Agricultural Marketing published a notification declaring his intention to regulate marketing of a large number of commodities in the market area of Haveli and Pune City Taluks
On October 4 1975 the Director of Agricultural Marketing Maharashtra State exercising his powers under Sec
52 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act 1963 declared the locality known as Market Yard Gultekadi as the principal market for the market area for the marketing of various commodities specified in the notification
Thereafter on October 8 1975 a Circular was issued to all Adatis merchants and licence holders particularly wholesale dealers dealing in Gur Halad Dhania etc
in the vicinity of Bhavanipeth Nanapeth informing them that Bhavanipeth Nanapeth will cease to be a market from the midnight of October 13 1975 and that the market yard Gultekadi had been declared as the principal market for the market area
The circular went on to say that anyone carrying on business anywhere except Gultekadi was liable to be prosecuted
The result of the notification dated October 4 1975 and the Circular dated October 8 1975 was that it was not permissible for anyone to carry on trade in any of the notified agricultural commodities outside the Gultekadi market yard on and after October 14 1975
It meant that traders like the petitioner who had for generations been carrying on business in these commodities in Bhavanipeth Nanapeth had perforce to move into Gultekadi market yard if they wanted to stay in the business
Consequent upon representations made by the Pune Merchants Chamber and the interim order in a Writ petition filed in the Bombay High Court by the Chamber the date notified for the commencement of the functioning of the Principal Market in Gulekadi 874 was postponed from time to time Finally by a public notice dated March 6 1980 all wholesale traders commission agents and others dealing in agricultural produce in Bhavanipeth Nanapeth and surrounding areas were informed that with effect form March 17 1980 wholesale trade in the regulated agricultural produce could be carried on in the Gultekadi market yard only
The petitioner seeks to resist the situation thus sought to be forced upon him and challenges the notification dated October 4 1975 and the consequential notices requiring him to carry on business in regulated agricultural produce in the Gultekadi market yard and at no other place
Similarly in Writ Petition Nos 937 to 1063 of 1980 and Writ Petition Nos 1111 to 1115 of 1980 132 other traders who are presently carrying on business in the existing market of Bhavanipeth Nanapeth question the notification and the notices following the notification
In Writ Petition Nos 1558 of 1980 and 5441 to 5462 of 1980 the petitioners are wholesale traders in onions and potatoes who carry on their business in the Maulana Azad Road Market in Bombay
They complain against a notification dated December 5 1978 by which it was declared that after January 26 1979 marketing of potatoes and onions shall be carried on at the Principal Market at Turbhe and at no other place
It appears that initially for the market area comprising Greater Bombay and Turbhe Village in Thana Taluka the newly established market at Turbhe was declared as the Principal Market and the existing markets at Maulana Azad Road and Mahatma Phule Mandai were declared subsidiary markets
This was by a notification dated January 15 1977
Later by the impugned notification dated December 5 1978 the subsidiary markets were abolished and the market at Turbhe alone was declared as the Principal Market for the area comprising Greater Bombay and Turbhe village
It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act 1963 did not invest the Director of Marketing or the Market Committee with any power to compel a trader to transfer his activity from a previously existing market to a principal or subsidiary market established under Sec
5 of the Act
There was no provision in the Act by which a trader could be compelled to market declared agricultural produce in the principal or subsidiary market established under Sec
5 and in no other place
This was a feature which distinguished it from the Bombay Act of 1939 and the Agricultural Produce Marketing Acts of some other States
Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Rules 1967 which purported to provide that no person shall market any declared agricultural produce 875 in any place in a market area other than the Principal Market or subsidiary market established therein was ultra vires
It was also submitted that once a principal or subsidiary market was established at one place there was no provision in the Act which enabled the principal or subsidiary market to be transferred to another place
In any event it was urged that the notification was an unreasonable restriction on the right of the petitioners to carry on their trade
It was also submitted
and this appeared to be the main thrust of the argument of most of the counsel for the various petitioners that the Act did not cover transactions between trader and trader and transactions by which the agricultural produce was imported into the market area from outside the market area
5 and 6 and Rules 5 and 6 had to be so read the language permitted such a construction as to make a distinction between a sale of agricultural produce by a producer to a trader which had to be within a market and a subsequent sale by a trader to a trader which could be anywhere in the market area
It was submitted that if Sections 5 and 6 and Rules 5 and 6 were to be construed as compelling transactions between trader and trader also to take place within a market they were invalid
In the petitions of the Bombay merchants it was further urged that Sec
131A which was a special provision declaring Greater Bombay and Turbhe village a Market Area was unreasonable and invalid
For a proper appreciation of the submissions made it is necessary to refer to some of the relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act 1963 and the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Rules 1967
The long title of the Act is An Act to regulate the marketing of agricultural and certain other produce in market areas and markets to be established therefor in the State to confer powers upon Market Committees to be constituted in connection with or acting for purposes connected with such markets to establish Market Fund for purposes of the Market Committees and to provide for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid
21h defines market as meaning any principal market established for the purposes of this Act and also a subsidiary market
21i defines market area as meaning an area specified in a declaration made under Sec 4
21o defines retail sale as meaning in relation to any agricultural produce sale of that produce not exceeding such quantity as a Market Committee may by bye laws determine to be a retail sale
21t defines trader as meaning a person who buys or sells agricultural produce as a principal or as duly authorised agent of one or more persons
3 empowers the Government to declare its intention of regulating the marketing of such agricultural produce in such area as may be 876 specified in a notification to be published in the official Gazette
Objections or suggestions which may be received by the State Government within a specified period are to be considered by the State Government
Thereafter Sec 4 provides the State Government may declare by another notification that the marketing of the agricultural produce specified in the notification
The area specified shall be the market area
51 provides that there shall be a principal market for every market area and there may also be one of more subsidiary markets
Sec 52 empowers the Director by notification to establish any place in any market area to be the principal market for the marking of agricultural produce specified in the notification
Subsidiary markets may also be established likewise
5 is important and it may therefore be extracted here 51 For every market area there shall be established a principal market and there may be established one or more subsidiary markets
2 The Director shall as soon as possible after the issue of a notification under sub section 1 of section 4 by a notification in the Official Gazette establish any place including any structure enclosure open place or locality in any market area to be the principal market for the marketing of the agricultural produce specified in that notification and may by the same notification or by like notification establish in any other like places in the market area subsidiary markets for the marketing of such agricultural produce
6 provides that no person shall use any place in the market area for the marketing of the declared agricultural produce or operate in the market area or in any market therein as a trader commission agent broker processor weighman measurer surveyor warehouseman or in any other capacity in relation to the marketing of the declared agricultural produce on and after the date on which the declaration under Sec
41 is made except in conformity with the terms and conditions of a licence granted by the Market Committee or by the Director when a Market Committee has not yet started functioning
It is important to mention here that Sec
61 is expressly made subject to the rules providing for regulating the marketing of agricultural produce in any place in the market area
62 also provides that Sec
61 shall not apply to sales by retail sales by an agriculturist who sells his own produce and sales 877 by a person to another for the latter s personal consumption
6 also may be extracted here 6 1 Subject to the provisions of this section and of the rules providing for regulating the marketing of agricultural produce in any place in the market area no person shall on and after the date on which the declaration is made under sub section 1 of section 4 without or otherwise than in conformity with the terms and conditions of a licence granted by the Director when a Market Committee has not yet started functioning and in any other case by the Market Committee in this behalf a use any place in the market area for the marketing of the declared agricultural produce or b operate in the market area or in any market therein as a trader commission agent broker processor weighman measurer surveyor warehouseman or in any other capacity in relation to the marketing of the declared agricultural produce
2 Nothing in sub section 1 shall apply to sales by retail sales by an agriculturist who sells his own produce nor to sales by a person where he himself sells to another who buys for his personal consumption or the consumption of any member of his family
 Sec 7 empowers the Market Committee subject to rules made in that behalf and after making such enquiry as it thinks fit to grant or renew a licence for the use of any place in the market area for marketing of the agricultural produce or for operating therein as a trader etc
The Market Committee may refuse to grant or renew any licence for reasons to be recorded in writing
Sec 8 enables the Market Committee to suspend or cancel any licence
10 makes provision for the constitution of a Board by the Market Committee for the settlement of disputes between buyers and sellers or their agents inclusive of disputes relating to quality weight payment etc
11 provides for the establishment of a Market Committee by the State Government
Sections 12 and 13 deal with the incorporation and constitution of Market Committees
131A makes special provision for Greater Bombay and Turbhe village
The area comprising Greater Bombay and Turbhe village is deemed to be a market area for the purposes of the Act and a Market Committee is constituted with a different composition from other Market Committees
enumerates the powers and duties of Market Committees
It is the duty of a Market Committee to implement the provisions of the Act the rules and bye laws made thereunder in the market area to provide such facilities for marketing of agricultural produce therein as the Director may from time to time direct and to do such other acts as may be required in relation to the superintendence direction and control of markets or for regulating marketing of agricultural produce in any place in the market area
The Market Committee is also empowered to maintain and manage the market including admissions to and conditions for use of markets to regulate marketing of agricultural produce in the market area of the market to establish centres for the collection of such agricultural produce in the market area as the State Government may notify from time to time to collect maintain disseminate and supply information in respect of production sale storage processing prices and movement of agricultural produce including information relating to crops statistics and marketing intelligence to take all possible steps to prevent adulteration to promote grading and standardization of agricultural produce and to enforce the provisions of the Act rules and bye laws and conditions of licences
10A enables the Market Committee to open Collection Centres for marketing of notified produce
Any person wishing to sell any notified produce in a market area may tender such produce at the collection centre
31 makes it competent to a Market Committee to levy and collect fees from every purchaser of agricultural produce marketed in the market area
35 enables a Market Committee to employ a Secretary and such other officers and servants as may be necessary for the management of the market for the collection maintenance dissemination and supply of information relating to crops statistics and marketing intelligence and for carrying out its duties under the Act
36 provides for the creation of Market Fund and Sec
37 enumerates the purposes for which the Market Fund may be expended
Among those purposes are the acquisition of a site or sites for the market maintenance development and improvement of the market construction of and repairs to buildings necessary for the purposes of such market and the health convenience and safety of persons using it maintenance of standard weights and measures collection and dissemination of information propaganda for agricultural improvement and orderly marketing etc
Section 60 makes a contravention of the provisions of Section 61 punishable
Section 60 empowers the State Government to make rules for carrying into effect the purposes of the Act
Pursuant to the power conferred by Sec
60 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act 1963 rules have 879 been made
Rule 5 prescribes that no person shall market any declared agricultural produce in any place in a market area other than principal market or subsidiary market established therein
The proviso to Rule 5 enables the Direct of Marketing to authorise a Market Committee to permit a trader or Commission Agent to market declared agricultural produce or to permit any other market functionary to operate at any place within the market area as may be mentioned by the Market Committee in the licence granted to such trader
This is obviously a reserve power vested in the Market Committee to be exercised but in exceptional cases and on an express authorisation from the Director subject to the terms and conditions imposed by him
Rule 6 prescribes the procedure by which any person desiring to use any place in a market area for marketing of any declared agricultural produce or for operating therein as a trader commission agent or broker may obtain a licence
He is required to make an application in the prescribed form and submit with the application a solvency certificate cash security or bank guarantee and a character certificate
The Director or the Market Committee as the case may be may grant or renew a licence after satisfying himself or itself about the solvency certificate cash security or bank guarantee the capacity of the applicant for providing adequate equipment for smooth conduct of the business and the conduct of the applicant
If the licence is refused reasons are required to be recorded in writing
Rule 7 deals with the grant of licences to warehousemen measurers surveyors processors weighmen etc
Rule 82 bans the employment of a broker in relation to marketing of any declared agricultural produce except in relation to marketing of such produce by a trader with another trader
Rule 12 stipulates that every declared agricultural produce shall be sold by public auction
Rule 15 requires every declared agricultural produce to be weighed by licensed weighmen or measurer
Rule 16 17 and 18 deal with the preparation of records in connection with the transactions of purchase of declared agricultural produce
Rule 20 obliges every purchaser of declared agricultural produce to make payment to the seller or his commission agent immediately after the sale on the same day
Rule 21 prohibits the adulteration of declared agricultural produce in the market area or market
Rule 22 provides for grading and standardization of agricultural produce
Rule 25 provides for inspection of weights and measures
Rule 27 requires the Market Committee to publish a daily list of prices of the different varieties and grades of declared agricultural produce marketed in the market area
There are several other rules providing for the constitution of Market Committees preparation of their budgets discharge of their other duties etc but for our purpose it may not be necessary to refer to them
880 We have seen that Sec
5 authorises the establishment of a principal market and one or more subsidiary markets
Quite obviously the power to establish a principal market or a subsidiary market carries with it the power to disestablish if such an expression may be used such market
Quite obviously again the power given by Sec 5 to establish a principal or subsidiary market may be exercised from time to time
These follow from Sections 14 and 21 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act
So Sec
5 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act 1963 read with Sections 14 and 21 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act vest enough power in the Director to close an existing market and establish it elsewhere
4A2 of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1939 the Act which preceded the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act empowered the State Government to declare any enclosure building or locality in any market area to be a principal market yard for the area and other enclosures buildings or localities to be one or more sub market yards for the area
There was a proviso to Sec
4A2 which provided that out of the enclosures buildings or localities declared to be market yards before the commencement of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Amendment Act 1954 one shall be declared to be the principal market yard for the market area and others if any to be one or more sub market yards for the area Before the 1954 amendment Act Vakhar Bagh was the market yard for a certain market area
In October 1954 after the 1954 amendment came into force Vakhar Bagh was declared as the principal market yard for the market area under the proviso to section 4A2 of the Act
A few days later another notification was issued declaring some other place as the principal market yard for the market area
Vakhar Bagh was not even declared as a sub market yard
The effect was that Vakhar Bagh Market Yard ceased to be a market yard
This was questioned in Bapubhai Ratanchand Shah vs The State of Bombay
The argument was that Vakhar Bagh had necessarily to be declared as a Principal Market Yard since there was no sub market yard under the proviso to Sec
4A2 and that once having been so declared another market yard could not be substituted in its place
This argument was repelled by Chagla C J and Tendolkar J
It was observed at p 903 904 Now section 4A2 confers upon the Government the power to declare any enclosure building or locality in any market area to be a principal market yard for the area and other enclosures buildings or localities to be one or more sub 881 market yards for the area
It is clear that by reason of section 14 of the General Clauses Act any power that is conferred on Government can be exercised from time to time as occasion requires
Therefore it would be clearly competent to the State Government to declare from time to time which should be the principal market yard and which should be sub market yards
It is also clear under section 21 of the General Clauses Act that when a power to issue notifications orders rules or bye laws is conferred then that power includes a power to exercise in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions if any to add to amend vary or rescind any notifications orders rules or bye laws so issued     under section 4A2 Government can by issuing notifications from time to time after the principal market yards which have been set up and which did not exist before the passing of the Amending Act
We agree
Any other construction may frustrate the very object of the legislation
Nothing may be expected to remain static in this changing world of ours
A market which is suitably and conveniently located today may be found to be unsuitable and Inconvenient tomorrow on account of the development of the area in another direction or the congestion which may have reduced the market into an Impossible squalid place or for a variety of other reasons
To so interpret the provisions of the Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act as prohibit the abolition of a market once established and bar the transfer of the market to another place would as we said be to defeat the very object of the Act
Neither the text nor the context of the relevant provisions of the Act warrant such a prohibition and bar and there is no reason to imply any such
On the other hand Sections 14 and 21 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act warrant our reading into Sec 5 a power to close a market and establish it elsewhere
The submission that Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Rules 1967 which provides that no person shall market any declared agricultural produce in any place in a market area other than the principal market or subsidiary market established therein is ultra vires is in our opinion equally without force
60 of the Act empowers the State Government to make rules for carrying into effect the purposes of the Act
It cannot but be said that the establishment of a principal and subsidiary markets for the marketing of declared agricultural produce and the bar against marketing operations being carried on elsewhere than in the markets so 882 established is only to further and to give effect to the purposes of the Act
The scheme of the Act shows that the agricultural produce whose marketing is proposed to be regulated should first be notified a market area has to be declared in respect of the notified agricultural produce a Market Committee has to be constituted for the market area a principal market and one or more subsidiary markets have to be established for every market area traders etc
have to be licensed and the Market Committee is required to provide facilities for marketing of agricultural produce to superintend direct and control the markets and regulate marketing of agricultural produce
Regulation of marketing of notified agricultural produce and the establishment of principal and subsidiary markets are among the prime objects of the Act
If for the more effective regulation of marketing it is thought that all marketing operations in respect of declared agricultural produce should be carried on only in the principal and subsidiary markets established under the Act we do not see how it can possibly be said that a rule made for that purpose is beyond the competence of the rule making authority under the Act
It is not difficult to visualise the impossibility of effective regulation if marketing operations are allowed to be carried on outside the principal and subsidiary markets anywhere in the market area
The submission was that all the regulatory measures contemplated by the Act and the rules may be enforced equally effectively wherever business in agricultural produce is carried on in the market area outside the principal and subsidiary markets as within the principal and subsidiary markets
On the face of it it is difficult to accept this submission
The regulation will become impossible and will soon be reduced to a farce if traders are allowed to carry on marketing operations in every nook and corner of the market area
The Market Committee will be forced to employ an unduly large number of officers who will have to run hither and thither all over the market area
The regulation and control will soon become unmanageable
Nor will the producers  interests be properly served
Where a producer brings his produce to the market he will deal face to face not with one but with several traders with a greater chance of getting the best price for his produce
This cannot happen if he is persuaded to take his produce to the place of business of an individual trader outside the principal or subsidiary market
There is a greater possibility of abuse and greater likelihood of the object of the Act being frustrated
Fair price to the agriculturist will soon be a mirage and the evil sought to be prevented will persist
In Kewal Krishan Puri  Anr
vs State of Punjab  Ors1 this Court had occasion to observe 883 No body can be allowed to establish a purchasing centre of his own at any place he likes in the market area without there being such a permission or authority from the Market Committee
After all the whole object of the Act is the supervision and control of the transactions of purchase by the traders from the agriculturists in order to prevent exploitation of the latter by the former
The supervision and control can be effective only in specified localities and places and not throughout the extensive market area
 One of the submissions of the learned Counsel was that Section 6 of the Act contemplated the use of any place in the market area for the marketing of the declared agricultural produce on obtaining a licence from the Market Committee and therefore Rule 5 which banned marketing at any place outside the principal and subsidiary markets though such place was within the market area was inconsistent with Section 6 and hence ultra vires
The submission ignores the circumstance that Section 6 is applicable to both the situations before and after the establishments of markets
Where a market area is specified under Sec 4 of the Act but no markets are yet established marketing is regulated by licensing the traders etc
under Sec 6
After markets are established also traders have to be licensed under Sec 6
But Sec 6 is expressly declared to be subject to the rules providing for regulating the marketing of agricultural produce in any place in the market area
Rule 5 is a rule providing for regulating the marketing of agricultural produce in the market area by stipulating that the marketing shall be carried in the market established in the market area
Section 6 is therefore subject to Rule 5
There can be no question of any inconsistency between Section 6 and Rule 5
Yet another submission of the learned counsel was that the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1939 and the Agricultural Produce Marketing Acts of other States such as Karnataka provided or indicated by express provision that once a market was established it was not permissible to market or trade in agricultural produce outside the market and that the absence of such an express provision in the Maharashtra Act showed that no such ban was contemplated by the Act
We are unable to agree with the submission
Absence of an express provision in the Act itself merely means that greater latitude is given to the rule making authority to introduce regulation of marketing by stages and to ban all marketing activity outside the market
The latitude given to the rule making authority cannot lead to the 884 inference that the rule making authority has no power to make a rule banning marketing activities outside the market once the market is established even when such a ban is found to be necessary
We therefore hold that the rule prescribing that no marketing operation in any declared agricultural produce shall be carried on outside the principal or subsidiary markets is consistent and in consonance with the scheme of the Act and is within the competence of the rule making authority and that it is reasonable
Next we pass on to the main submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the transactions between trader and trader and transactions by which the agricultural produce was imported into the market area from outside the market area were outside the purview of the Act and that if Sec 5 and Rule 5 were intended to cover such transactions also they were invalid
The basic assumption of the submission was that the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act was conceived in the interests of the agriculturists only and intended for their sole benefit
This basic assumption is not well founded
It is true that one of the principal objects sought to be achieved by the Act is the securing of a fair price to the agriculturist
As the long title of the Act itself says the Act is intended to regulate the marketing of agricultural and certain other produce
The marketing of agricultural produce is not confined to the first transaction of sale by the producer to the trader but must necessarily include all subsequent transactions in the course of the movement of the commodity into the ultimate hands of the consumer so long of course as the commodity retains its original character as agricultural produce
While middlemen are sought to be eliminated it is wrong to view the Act as one aimed at legitimate and genuine traders
Far from it
The regulation and control is as much for their benefit as it is for the benefit of the producer and the ultimate consumer
The elimination of middlemen is as much in the interest of the trader as it is in the interest of the producer
Promotion of grading and standardization of agricultural produce is as much to his benefit as to the benefit of the producer or consumer
So also proper weighment
The provision for settlement of disputes arising out of transactions connected with the marketing of agricultural produce and ancillary matters is also for the benefit of the trader
It is because of these and various other services performed by the Market Committee for the benefit of the trader that the trader is required to pay a fee
It is therefore clear 885 that the regulation of marketing contemplated by the Act involves benefits to traders too in a large way
It is also clear to our mind that the regulation of marketing of agricultural produce if confined to the sales by producers within the market area to traders will very soon lead to its circumvention in the guise of sales by traders to traders or import of agricultural produce from outside the market area to within the market area
The Shirname Committee which was appointed by the Maharashtra Government to review the working of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Marketing Act 1939 considered the matter and reported as follows para 86 They the traders have argued that imported produce has nothing to do with the legislation meant to confer benefits on the agriculturist
We are afraid that this view is untenable
In our opinion the benefits sought to be conferred by the Act are not compartmental inasmuch as a regulated market seeks to benefit the agriculturist within its area only
The problem of regulation is to be viewed in the wider context
This was well emphasised by the Royal Commission on Agriculture which stated that the establishment of properly regulated markets can act as a powerful agent in bringing about a reform which is much needed primarily in the interest of the cultivator and secondly in that of all engaged in trade and commerce in India 
It is in this larger perspective that an answer to the question is to be found
Moreover no agricultural produce goes by a particular brand with the result that the produce brought from a particular source cannot be distinguished from the one secured from the other
If the produce imported from outside the market area were to be exempted from the scope of the market regulation it would only provide an additional opportunity for the traders to circumvent the provisions of the Act and Rules even in respect of the agricultural commodities produced within the market area
We therefore recommend that once a commodity is regulated in a market it should be subjected to regulation irrespective of its source or final destination
 Again they said in paragraph 95 as follows We wish to record here that there appears to be a doubt among the traders as well as the Market Committees about the precise position of sales of commodities after they are brought from agriculturists by traders vis a vis the provisions of the Act and the Rules
It has been the belief of 886 the traders that the law is for the benefit of agriculturists and on this ground they have pleaded that its scope should be restricted only to the dealings with them
We are afraid that this plea is not tenable
The benefit of a regulated market will no doubt primarily accrue to the agriculturists but traders also will be profited by it
Furthermore no market can be regulated effectively unless and until the regulation covers all the stages of marketing within a particular area
Above all it is not possible to distinguish between the agricultural produce subjected to resale or changing hands between the traders themselves and the one sold by the agriculturists through the commission agents to the traders
We therefore recommend that all transactions including the resales between the traders and traders in respect of the agricultural commodities which are regulated should be covered by the Act and the Rules
Thus in a regulated market trading in agricultural commodities irrespective of the fact as to whether they are produced in the market area or sold by the agriculturists or not will be brought within the scope of the legislation
 Nor are we without any guidance from this Court itself in answering the question posed
In Mohammadbhai Khudabux Chhippa  Anr
vs The State of Gujarat  Anr it was pointed out while dealing with the provisions of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1939 as follows at p 899 Next it is urged that the provisions in the Act also affect transaction between traders and traders and also affect produce not grown within the market area if it is sold in the market area
That is undoubtedly so
But if control has to be effective in the interest of the agricultural producer such incidental control of produce grown outside the market area and brought into the market yard for sale is necessary as otherwise the provisions of the Act would be evaded by alleging that the particular produce sold in the market yard was not grown in the market area
For the same reasons transactions between traders and traders have to be controlled if the control in the interest of agricultural producers and the general public has to be effective
We are therefore of opinion that the Act and the Rules and Bye laws thereunder cannot be struck down 887 on this ground
The contention under this head therefore must fail
Again in Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar  Co  Ors
vs State of UP  Anr
1 dealing with the contention that fee could be charged only on those transactions in which the seller was the producer and not on any other transaction this Court disapproved the view taken by the Mysore High Court and approved the view taken by the Patna High Court that fee could be levied on a transaction of buying and selling between a dealer and a dealer
Dealing with the contention that the agricultural produce not produced in the market area was outside the purview of the Act it was observed at p 1134 It is also not correct to say that the agricultural produce must have been produced in the market area in which the first levy is made
It might have been produced in another market area or even outside the State of Uttar Pradesh but if a transaction of sale and purchase takes place of an agricultural produce as defined in the Act and covered by the notification within a particular market area then fee can be charged in relation to the said transaction
One of the submissions strenuously pressed before us was that the statute itself imposed and provided for such stringent supervision and control sufficient and more to regulate transactions between traders and traders that it was superfluous to insist that such transactions do take place in the market only
We do not agree
Human ingenuity is such that vents and escapes will always be found in any system of controls
We are unable to say that the other supervisory measures for which there is provision in the Act are sufficient to make it unnecessary for the traders to move their places of business into the market
No amount of supervision may be as effective as when all the transactions take place within the market
Nor is effective supervision at all possible if traders are dispersed all over the market area
Every Market Committee will then require a large contingent of officers for the purpose of supervision only
The rendering of services to the traders also will be far easier and in the ultimate analysis it will be in the interests of the traders themselves at any rate in the interests of the vast majority of the traders that transactions between traders and traders also are carried on in the market only
There cannot be any doubt 888 that localising marketing is helpful and necessary for regulation and control and for providing facilities
If all transactions are carried on in the market under the watchful and at the same time helpful vigil of the Market Committee and its officers there is surely a greater chance of the success of the objectives of the statute
We are therefore not prepared to hold that the requirement that the locus of all transactions of sale and purchase of agricultural produce including those between trader and trader should be in the market is harsh and an excessive restriction on the Fundamental Right to carry on trade
It was the submission of the learned counsel that Sec 6 of the Maharashtra Act made a distinction between a the use of any place in the market area for the marketing of the declared agricultural produce and b the operation in the market area or in any market therein as a trader commission agent broker etc
in relation to the marketing of agricultural produce and that the distinction was in reality a distinction between a sale by a producer to a trader and a subsequent sale by a trader to a trader
The argument was that Rule 5 which banned marketing of any declared market agricultural produce in any place in a market area other than the principal market or subsidiary market established therein applied only to a sale of the agricultural produce by a producer to trade
We do not see any warrant for the submission of the learned counsel in the language employed in Sec 6 or Rule 5
If the legislature or the rule making authority wanted to make a distinction between a sale of agricultural produce by a producer to a trader and a subsequent sale by a trader to a trader nothing would have been simpler than to say so instead of adopting the circumlocutous way in which the learned counsel claims it has been said
The proviso to Rule 5 speaks of operating at any place within the market area by a trader commission agent or other market functionary after obtaining a licence while the main provision refers to the marketing of declared agricultural produce at any place in the market area
Surely it cannot be contended that the proviso is unrelated to the main provision
According to ordinary cannons of construction the proper function of a proviso is to except and deal with a case which would otherwise full within the general language of the main enactment
It therefore shows that no such distinction as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners was in the mind of the legislature or the rule making authority
The onion and potato merchants of Bombay advanced a special plea that Sec
131A which declared the area comprising Greater 889 Bombay and Turbhe village a market area for the purposes of the Act was invalid as it was wholly unreasonable to constitute such a large area into a single market area
The validity of the notification establishing a market at Turbhe was attacked as unreasonable
It was said that it was unreal and unreasonable to establish a single market for so large an area and that at such an inconvenient place as Turbhe village
It has been explained in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent that the existing markets in Maulana Azad Road and Mahatma Phule Mandal were highly congested and located in areas which were over crowded with the result that it took several hours to even unload onions and potatoes from the trucks which carried them
It has become imperative in the public interest that the markets should be shifted from Maulana Azad Road and Mahatma Phule Mandai
Turbhe village was chosen as an area free from congestion and conveniently located as it was on the main trunk road from Pune
It was also very near the other trunk Road going towards the East
A Railway linking the area with both the Western Railway and the Central Railway net works was fast coming up
It was also pointed out that 60 of the population of Greater Bombay resided in the Northern suburbs and the new market was much nearer to the majority of the residents and traders of Greater Bombay
We are unable to see anything unreasonable in the statutory declaration of Greater Bombay and Turbhe village as a market area nor are we able to see anything unreasonable in view of the circumstances mentioned by the respondents in the establishment of a single market in Turbhe village for the entire market area
It was also said that neither the Gultekdi market nor the Turbhe market had any convenience or facility or was ready for use on the date on which it was notified as the Principal Market for the concerned market area
On the material placed before us we are satisfied that all reasonable conveniences and facilities are now available in both the markets whatever night have been the situation on the respective dates of notification
We refrain for embarking into an enquiry as to the situation obtaining on the dates of notification
We do say that a place ought not to be notified as a market unless it is ready for use as a market with all reasonable facilities and conveniences but we do not conceive it to be our duty to pursue the matter to the extreme limit of quashing the notification when we find that all reasonable facilities and conveniences are now available
While a notification may be quashed if nothing has been done beyond publishing the notification in cases where some facilities and conveniences 890 have been provided but not some others which are necessary the Court may instead of quashing the notification give appropriate time bound directions for providing necessary facilities and conveniences
On the facts of the present case we are satisfied that all reasonable facilities and conveniences are now provided
We are also satisfied that the traders have been making one desperate attempt after another to avoid moving into the new markets and they have been successful in stalling the notifications from becoming effective for quite a number of years
In the Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals from Karnataka State similar questions have been raised
Though the broad scheme of the Karnataka Act is the same as the Maharashtra Act there are some differences which however are not basic
Instead of a two tier scheme Market Area and Markets as under the Maharashtra Act the Karnataka Act has a three tier scheme Market Area Market and sub market and market yard sub market yard and sub yard
Market Area is a larger area within which smaller areas are declared as a Market and sub markets
Within a market are located a market yard and market sub yards and within a sub market is located a sub market yard
The market yard  in the Karnataka Act is what corresponds to a market  in the Maharashtra Act
Unlike the Maharashtra Act the Karnatka Act itself section 82 expressly provides that no place in the Market or the sub market except the market yard sub yard or the sub market yard as the case may be shall be used for the purchase or sale of notified agricultural produce
Originally after the words purchase or sale of notified agricultural words occurred the words belonging to a producer in Section 82
The words belonging to a producer were omitted by a 1976 amendment and this makes the provisions of section 82 applicable to transactions between trader and trader too
The shifting of market yard from one place to another and the application of the Act to transactions between traders and traders are what were principally questioned in the Karnataka cases
Substantially the same submissions as in the Maharashtra cases were made and we have already dealt with them
We my now turn to the Bihar cases
The Bihar Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1960 follows roughly the same pattern as the other Acts
A market area has to be first declared within which the marketing of specified agricultural produce is proposed to be regulated
For every market area there is to be a principal market yard and one or more sub market yards
In between the market area and the market yard there is to be a market but market does not seem to play any part in the scheme of the Act as it now stands after the 1974 amendments
However it should be mentioned here that Rule 80 891 which is still on the Statute Book provides that a market shall be established for a market area and that after the establishment of a market a notification under Sec 5 declaring market yards shall be issued
15 of the Act provides that no specified agricultural produce shall be bought or sold at any place within the market area other than the principal market yard or sub market yard established therein except such quantity as may be prescribed for retail sale or personal consumption
The arguments advanced in the Maharashtra and Karnataka cases were advanced in the Bihar cases also
For the reasons already mentioned we reject the submission
In one of the Bihar cases it was further submitted that when a market yard was disestablished at one place and established at another place it was the duty of the concerned authority to invite and hear objections
Failure to do so was a violation of the principles of natural justice and the notification disestablishing the market yard at one place and establishing it elsewhere was therefore bad
It was said that even as there was express provision for inviting and hearing objections before a market area was declared under the Act so should objections be invited and heard before a market yard  was established at any particular place
The principles of nature justice demanded it
We are unable to agree
We are here not concerned with the exercise of a judicial or quasi judicial function where the very nature of the function involves the application of the rules of natural justice or of an administrative function affecting the rights of persons wherefore a duty to act fairly
We are concerned with legislative activity we are concerned with the making of a legislative instrument the declaration by notification of the Government that a certain place shall be a principal market yard for a market area upon which declaration certain statutory provisions at once spring into action and certain consequences prescribed by statute follow forthwith
The making of the declaration in the context is certainly an act legislative in character and does not oblige the observance of the rules of natural justice
In Bates vs Lord Hailsham Megarry J pointed out that the rules of natural justice do not run in the sphere of legislation primary or delegated and in Tulsipur Sugar Co vs Notified Area Committee our brothers Desai and Venkataramaiah JJ approved what was said by Megarry J and applied it to the field of conditional legislation too
In Paul Jackson s Natural Justice Second Edn it has been pointed out at p169 There is no doubt that a Minister or any other body in making legislation for example by statutory instrument 892 or by law is not subject to the rules of natural justice Bates vs Lord Hailsham of St Mayleborne more than is Parliament itself Edinburgh and Dalkeith Ry
vs Wauchope 1842 8 Cl  F 710 720 per Lord Brougham British Railways Board vs Pickin  Prof H W R Wade has similarly pointed in his Administrative Law 4th Edn There is no right to be heard before the making of legislation whether primary or delegated unless it is provided by statutes
There is therefore no substance in the invocation of the rules of natural justice
One of the submissions in the Bihar cases was that the declaration of places as market yards was made in such an erratic fashion that the exercise of the power could only be termed as an arbitrary misuse of power
The facts in Civil Appeal No 1507 of 1980 were that on September 16 1964 a certain area was declared as a principal market yard and Amgola Chandwara Sarai Said Ali and Brahmpura were declared as Sub market yards
On February 23 1978 instead of the principal market yard declared by the notification of September 16 1964 Muradpur Dulla was declared as principal market yard
The sub market yards were abolished
By another notification dated April 9 1979 all the market yards notified on September 16 1964 were allowed to continue as before but it was also simultaneously made known that such market yards would be closed on specified dates and merchants were advised to move their business into the Muradpur Dulla principal market yard as early as possible
Finally by a notification dated July 3 1979 the previous notification dated April 9 1979 was cancelled and Muradpur Dulla market yard was alone notified as the principal market yard
The facts in the other two appeals were that on September 19 1963 Gaya town was declared as a market area
On April 6 1964 Chandauti was declared as the market proper under Sec52ii of the Bihar Act
By a notification dated April 7 1964 Mohalla Purani Godown was declared as principal market yard and Kedarnath Market was declared as the sub market yard for the market area
On October 19 1973 Mohalla Purani Godown was once again declared as the Principal Market Yard
Subsequently on February 28 1978 Chandauti was declared as the Principal Market Yard
This meant that Mohalla Purani Godown ceased to be a market yard and Kedarnath Market ceased to be a sub market yard
But again on April 9 1979 another notification was issued to the effect that Mohalla Purani Godown would continue as the market yard as before
Finally on June 27 1979 Chandauti was 893 declared as the Principal Market yard once more
This was questioned in Writ Petitions filed in the Patna High Court
The Patna High Court rejected all but one of the contentions raised
The only contention which was accepted was that the procedure prescribed by Rule 80 was not followed before Chandauti was declared as the principal market yard by the notification dated February 28 1978
Rule 80 as already mentioned by us provides that a market shall be established for a market area and that after the establishment of a market a notification declaring the market yard shall be issued
The contention which was accepted was that a market had not been established before a market yard was declared
Against the judgment of the High Court the merchants have filed Civil Appeal No 1715 of 1980 and the State of Bihar has filed Civil Appeal No 36 of 1980
Not withstanding the filing of the appeal the State of Bihar chose to issue a fresh notification after observing the procedure prescribed by Rule 80
This was again questioned in the High Court
The High Court upheld the notification
The merchants have preferred Civil Appeal No 1716 of 1980 against the judgment of the High Court
From the history of events it may appear as if declarations regarding market yards have been made in a most erratic fashion but as pointed out by the learned Attorney General who appeared for the State of Bihar it was not madness
There was a method
The old markets had existed from ancient days and it had become necessary to establish modern market yards with conveniences and facilities
When this was sought to be done there were representations by the traders and the Government appears to have thought that it was advisable to give the traders sufficient time to enable them to prepare themselves to move into the new market yards
The notifications establishing new market yards were therefore cancelled and the old markets were allowed to function for some time
Later when the time was thought to be ripe notifications establishing new market yards were once again issued
It is therefore seen that the seeming confusion was not the result of any arbitrary or erratic action on the part of the Government but was the result of a desire to accommodate the traders as much as possible
We therefore see no force in any of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners
All the Writ Petitions and Civil Appeals are therefore dismissed with costs
NVK Petitions and Appeals dismissed


Summary:
The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Act 1963 provides for the regulation of the marketing of agricultural produce in market areas to be established therefor in the State Market Committees to be constituted for purposes connected with such markets establishment of Market Fund for purposes of the Market Committees and for purposes connected with these matters
Section 3 empowers the Government by a notification to be published in the Official Gazette to declare its intention of regulating the marketing of such agricultural produce in such areas as may be specified and section 4 provides that the marketing of the agricultural produce shall be regulated under the Act in the area specified in the notification
Section1 provides a principal market for every market area and one or more subsidiary markets and section 52 empowers the Director to establish the principal market for the marketing of specified agricultural produce
Section 6 provides that no person shall use any place in the market area for the marketing of the declared agricultural produce or operate in the market area or in any market therein as a trader commission agent broker processor weighman measurer surveyor warehouseman or in any other capacity in relation to the marketing of the declared agricultural produce on and after the date on which the declaration under section 41 is made
Section 62 provides that section 61 shall not apply to sales by retail sales by an agriculturist who sells his own produce and sales by a person to another for the latter s personal consumption
The Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing Regulation Rules 1963 were promulgated pursuant to the power conferred by section 60 of the Act
Rule 5 provides that no person shall market any declared agricultural produce in any place in a market area other than the principal market or subsidiary 867 market established therein
The proviso to the rule enables the Director of Marketing to authorise a Market Committee to permit a trader or commission agent to market declared agricultural produce or to permit any other market functionary to operate at any place within the market area as may be mentioned by the Market Committee in the licence granted to such trader
The petitioners who were wholesale traders in onions and potatoes in their writ petitions to the Supreme Court assailed the notices requiring them to carry on business in regulated agricultural produce in the market yard at the specified areas of the State and at no other place contending that 1 the 1963 Act did not invest the Director of Marketing or the Market Committee with any power to compel a trader to transfer this activity from a previously existing market to a principal or subsidiary market established under section 5 of the Act 2 Rule 5 was inconsistent with section 6 and therefore ultra vires
3 The Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1939 and the Agricultural Produce Marketing Acts of other States such as Karnataka provided or indicated by an express provision that once a market was established it was not permissible to market or trade outside the market and that the absence of such an express provision in the 1963 Act showed that no such ban was contemplated by the Act
4 The transactions between trader and trader and transactions by which the agricultural produce was imported into the market area from outside the market areas were outside the purview of the Act and if section 5 and rule 5 were intended to cover such transactions also they were invalid
5 The statue itself imposed and provided for stringent supervision and control sufficient to regulate transactions between traders and traders that it was superfluous to insist that such transactions do take place in the market only
6 Section 6 of the Act made a distinction between a the use of any place in the market area for the marketing of the declared agricultural produce and b the operation in the market areas or in any market therein as a trader commission agent broker etc
in relation to the marketing of agricultural produce and that the distinction was in reality a distinction between a sale by a producer to a trader and a subsequent sale by a trader to a trader and consequently the ban imposed by Rule 5 applied only to a sale of the agricultural produce by a producer to a trader
7 Section 131A which declared the area comprising greater Bombay a market area for the purposes of the Act was invalid as it was wholly unreasonable to constitute such a large area into a single market area
8 when a market yard was disestablished at one place and established at another place it was the duty of the concerned authority to invite and hear objections and failing to do so was a violation of the principles of natural justice and the notification establishing the market yard elsewhere was bad
Dismissing the writ petitions and appeals  HELD 1
i The power conferred by section 5 of the Act to establish a principal market or a subsidiary market carries with it the power to disestablish such market
Section 5 of the Act read with sections 14 and 21 of the Maharashtra General Clauses Act vest enough power in the Director to close an existing market and establish it elsewhere
The repealed Act of 1939 also empowered the State Government to declare any market area to be a principal market yard for the area
The power to issue notifications orders etc
includes 868 the power to exercise in like manner to add to amend vary or rescind any notification order rule etc
Any other construction would frustrate the object of the legislation
880 A C 881 C D Bapubhai Ratanchand Shah vs State of Bombay LVII 1955 Bom
LR p 892 903 904 approved
ii Rule 5 is not ultra vires
If for the more effective regulation of marketing it is thought that all marketing operations in respect of declared agricultural produce should be carried on only in the principal and subsidiary markets established under the Act it cannot be said that a rule made for that purpose is beyond the competence of the rule making authority under the Act
881G 882C iii The submission that all regulatory measures contemplated by the Act and the Rules may be enforced equally effectively wherever business in agricultural produce is carried on in the market area outside the principal and subsidiary markets as within the principal and subsidiary markets is without force
If that is done the regulation will very soon be reduced to a farce
The Market Committee will be forced to employ an unduly large number of officers
The producer s interest will not be properly served because a producer will not be able to deal face to face with several traders and would have little chance of obtaining the best price for his produce
This cannot happen if he is persuaded to take his produce to the place of business of an individual trader outside the principal or subsidiary market
There is a greater possibility of abuse and greater likelihood of the object of the Act being frustrated
Fair price to the agriculturist will soon be a mirage and the evil sought to be prevented will persist
882 E H Kewal Krishan Puri  Anr
vs State of Punjab  Ors
1979 3 SCR p 1217 1247 referred to 2
There can be no question of any inconsistency between section 6 and rule 5
Section 6 is applicable to both the situations before and after the establishment of markets and is expressly declared to be subject to the rules providing for regulating the marketing of agricultural produce in the market area by stipulating that the marketing shall be carried on in the market established in the market area
883F D E 3
The rule prescribing that no marketing operation in any declared agricultural produce shall be carried on outside the principal or subsidiary markets is consistent and in consonance with the scheme of the Act and is within the competence of the rule making authority and is reasonable
Absence of an express provision in the Act to the effect that once a market is established it was not permissible to market or trade in agricultural produce outside the market itself merely means that greater latitude is given to the rule making authority to introduce regulation of marketing by stages and to ban all marketing activity outside the market
This cannot lead to the inference that the rule making authority has no power to make a rule banning marketing activity 869 outside the market once the market is established even when such a ban is found to be necessary
884 B 883 H 884 A 4
i The assumption that the Act was conceived in the interest of the agriculturists only and intended for their sole benefit is not well founded
One of the principal objects sought to be achieved by the Act is the securing of a fair price to the agriculturist for his produce by the elimination of middlemen and other detracting factors
But that is not the only object
The Act is intended to regulate marketing of agricultural and certain other produce
The marketing of agricultural produce is not confined to the first transaction of sale by the producer to the trader but must necessarily include all subsequent transactions in the course of the movement of the commodity into the ultimate hands of the consumer so long of course as the commodity retains its original character as agricultural produce
While middlemen are sought to be eliminated it is wrong to view the Act as one aimed at legitimate and genuine traders884D F ii Promotion of grading standardisation of agricultural produce weighment the provision for settlement of disputes arising out of transactions connected with the marketing of agricultural produce and ancillary matters are as much to the benefit of the producer as the consumer
Clearly therefore the regulation of marketing contemplated by the Act involves benefits to the traders too in a large way
Regulation of marketing of agricultural produce if confined to the sales by producers within the marketing area to traders will very soon lead to circumvention in the guise of sales by traders to traders or import of agricultural produce from outside the market area to within the market area
884G 885B 5
i It is not correct to say that the statute itself imposed and provided for such stringent supervision and control sufficient and more to regulate transactions between traders and traders that it was superfluous to insist that such transactions do take place in the market only
The other supervisory measures in the Act cannot be said to be sufficient to make it unnecessary for the traders to move their places of business into the market
No amount of supervision may be as effective as when all the transactions take place within the market
Nor is effective supervision at all possible if traders are dispersed all over the market area
The rendering of services to the traders also will be far easier
Therefore localising marketing is helpful and necessary for regulation and control and for providing facilities
887E 888A ii The requirement that the locus of transactions of sale and purchase of agricultural produce including those between trade and trader should be in the market cannot be said to be harsh or an excessive restriction on the Fundamental Right to carry on trade
888B 6
The proviso to rule 5 speaks of operating at any place within the market area by a trader commission agent or other market functionary after obtaining a licence while the main provision refers to the marketing of declared agricultural produce at any place in the market area
It cannot be contended that the proviso is unrelated to the main provision
According 870 to ordinary canons of construction the proper function of a proviso is to accept and deal with a case which would otherwise fall within the general language of the main enactment
888F G 7
There was nothing unreal and unreasonable in establishing a single market for a large area
It had become imperative in the public interest that the markets should be shifted from their former place to the new area
The present village was chosen because it was free from congestion conveniently located near another trunk road
A railway line linking with both the Western Railway and the Central Railway and so on
There is therefore nothing unreasonable in the statutory declaration of Greater Bombay and Turbhe Village as a market area nor in the establishment of a single market in Turbhe Village for the entire market area
889B E 8
Where a market yard was disestablished at one place and established at another place no exercise of a judicial or quasi judicial function is involved
All that is involved is the declaration by a notification of the Government that a certain place shall be a principal market yard for a market area upon which declaration certain statutory provisions at once spring into action and certain consequences prescribed by statute follow forthwith
The making of the declaration in this context is an act legislative in character and does not obligate the observance of the rules of natural justice
891C F Baits vs Lord Hailsham  Tulsipur Sugar Co vs Notified Area Committee  referred to
The seeming confusion in the large number of notifications issued by the Government from time to time was not the result of any arbitrary or erratic action on the part of the Government but was the result of a desire to accommodate the traders as much as possible
The old markets had existed from ancient days and it had become necessary to establish modern market yards with conveniences and facilities
When this was sought to be done there were representations by the traders and the Government thought that it was advisable to give the traders sufficient time to enable them to prepare themselves to move into the new market yards
The notifications establishing new market yards were therefore cancelled and the old markets were allowed to function for sometime
Later when the time was thought to be ripe notifications establishing new market yards were once again issued
893 F D E