Civil Appeals Nos
1912 1914 of 1976
Appeal by special Leave from the Judgment and order dated 7 2 1975 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Misc
Petition No 23174 and 685 and 73273 respectively IN Shroff and HS Parihar for the appellants
SK Gambhir for respondents Nos 1 and 2
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZAL ALI J
In this appeal by special leave on an application filed by the respondents before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh the High Court struck down the constitu tional validity of sub section
5 a of section 37 of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam 1972 hereinafter referred to as the Act  No
24 of 1973
The impugned sub section runs as follows 5 Every commission agent shall be liable a to keep the goods of his principal in safe custody without any charge other than the commission payable to him and 620 The High Court thought that this statutory provision places unreasonable restriction on the commission agent and puts great burden on him for storing the goods given to him by the principal without charging the commission for its safe custody
The Act is a social piece Of legislation and should have been liberally construed so as to advance the object of the Act and fulfil the aims to be achieved there by
The main purpose of the Act is to secure a scientific method of storage sale distribution and marketing of agricultural produce and cut out as far as possible middle man s profit
The Act therefore contains provisions of a beneficial nature preventing profiteering tendencies
It is not however the hardship that can be termed unreasonable so as to make a statute unconstitutional
Moreover the High Court does not appear to have looked to
the scheme of the Act and has in fact completely overlooked the provisions of section 374 which runs as follows 4 The commission agent shall recover his commission only from his principal trader at such rates as may be specified in the bye laws including all such expenses as may be incurred by him in storage of the produce and other services rendered by him This section clearly empowers the commission agent to charge such rates as may be specified by the bye laws even for the storage of the Produce and other services rendered by him
This provision also does not prevent the commission agent from levying reasonable charges for the storage over and above his commission
All that the Act prevents is that the commission agent is prohibited from levying any charges for safe custody from the farmer or the principal
This is done in order to attract and lure the farmers to place their goods with commission agents without additional payment of charges for safe custody
Section 37 4 however compen sates the commission agent by authorising him to charge his commission and all expenses which may be incurred by the commission agent in connection with the storage of the produce and the services rendered by him
This section therefore clearly authorises the commission agent not only to charge his commission from the principal trader but also expenses incurred by him for the purpose of the storage
That apart section 2e of the Act whiCh defines a Commission agent empowers him to charge any commission or percentage upon the amount involved in such transaction
For these reasons therefore we do not see any hardship or unreasonableness in the provisions Of section 375a of the Act
The High Court therefore committed an error of law in striking down this provision as unconstitutional
In our opinion therefore section 37 5 a of the Act is constitu tionally valid
In the view we take it is not necessary to go into the question whether the law violates article 19 of the Constitution which stands suspended during the emergen cy
The appeal is accordingly allowed
The order of the High Court is quashed
In the circumstances there will be no order as to
costs
MR Appeal al lowed


Summary:
The respondents challenged the constitutional validity of section 375a of the Madhya Pradesh Krishi Upaj Mandi Adhiniyam 1972 before the High Court on the ground that it places unreasonable restriction on the commission agent and puts a great burden on him for storing the goods given to him by his principal without charging the commission for its safe custody
The plea was accepted and the High Court struck down the impugned provision as unconstitutional
Allowing the appeal by Special Leave the Court HELD Section 375a is constitutionally valid and there is no hardship or unreasonableness in it
The provi sion prevents the commission agent from levying any addi tional charges from the farmer or the principal for safe custody of the goods
but section 374 of the Act compensates him by authorising him to charge not only his commission from the principal trader but also the expenses incurred by him for the purpose of storing the produce and the services rendered by him
620 D E G