CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1094 OF 1988 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JULY 24, 2008 M/s Sadhu Ram Prem Chand .....Petitioner VERSUS Secretary to Govt., Haryana, Agriculture Department, Haryana and others. ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. G. N. Ganeriwala, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Ravi Sodhi, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Aggrieved by the notification dated 18.1.1988 issued by the Haryana Government, abolishing the sub market yard of Old Grain and Vegetable Market at Kalka, the petitioner has filed this writ petition to impugn the said notification. The petitioner has sought issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing this notification and also order, Annexure P-2, dated 21.1.1988, vide which the petitioner was CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1094 OF 1988 :{ 2 }: directed to close the business at old market. The petitioner claims to be carrying on business of Commission Agent in Sabzi Mandi, Kalka. He had obtained a licence from respondent No.3 for carrying on the above business within the notified market area of Market Committee, Kalka. It is stated that the present Sabzi Mandi at Kalka is situated at Gandhi Chowk, Kalka and the petitioner is carrying on the business in this sub-yard for the last more than 30 years (at the time of filing of writ petition). The licence was provided to the petitioner for carrying on the business of Commission Agent by the respondent every year. It is stated that all of a sudden the impugned notification is issued, abolishing the present sub-yard and directions have been issued on that basis to the petitioner to close the business at the premises of old vegetables and grain market. He has accordingly filed this writ petition in the year 1988, challenging the notification and the order directing him to close his shop, being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice. Various grounds are pleaded in the petition to challenge this notification. It is stated that it would be beyond the powers of the respondents to abolish the sub-yard once it has been so declared. In the alternative, it is prayed that if it is conceded for the sake of arguments that powers vest in the Government, then it will be obligatory for the respondent-Government to serve notice on to the petitioner before passing any order, de-notifying the sub-yard. Not serving a notice, is submitted to be in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further pleaded that no objections were invited CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1094 OF 1988 :{ 3 }: from the petitioner before issuing the notification, de-notifying the sub-yard. Plea also is that direction to close the business at the old premises and for shifting it to the new place is in violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner pleads that no facilities have been provided at the new sub-yard by respondent No.3 but still the petitioner is being compelled to shift his business in a very tough situation. It is accordingly urged that it would not be in public interest to abolish the existing market place etc. At the time of issuing notice of motion on 4.2.1998, the Court passed the following order:- “The learned counsel contends that the Sub-Market yard has been closed by the Government vide notification dated January 18, 1988. The petitioner has been carrying on business in the Sub-Market yard for the last more than thirty years and he has invested lacs of rupees in the business and most of the amount is in circulation. In case he has to close the business abruptly, it will not be possible for him to recover the amount. He also contends that in the new Sub Market yard, even the shop has not been provided to the petitioner. Notice of motion for February 18, 1988. Dasti The petitioner may be allowed to continue business in the old Sub-Market Yard till further orders.” The above noted interim order was continued at the time of admitting the writ petition. It is on this basis that the petitioner has CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1094 OF 1988 :{ 4 }: continued to carry on his business at the sub market yard. Written statement has now been filed on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 22.7.2008. State of Haryana, however, has earlier filed reply on 13.7.1988. No action was taken to get the interim order vacated and the effect is that the petitioner continued to carry on his business in the sub market yard. Today replication has been filed to the written statement filed by respondent No.2, which is taken on record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The primary grievance of the petitioner appears to be that the sub-market yard has been de-notified through the impugned notification without providing alternative place for market. Submission also is that the petitioner had been conducting business for more than 30 years at the time of filing of the writ petition and was required to be provided an opportunity of hearing before issuing notification, abolishing the sub-market yard and also before issuing direction for the petitioner to close his business and shift to alternative grain market ear-marked for the purpose. In the reply filed by the State, the fact that objections were not invited before de-notifying the Old Grain Market, has been denied. It is pointed out that notification dated 18.1.1988 was not issued suddenly. Before issuing this impugned notification and for operationalising the New Grain Market (NGM) was set up in the year 1994, a notification dated 1.10.1987 was issued in exercise of powers conferred with the Government under Section 7(2) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961. Copy of this CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1094 OF 1988 :{ 5 }: notification is annexed as Annexure R-1. It is further pointed out that through this notification, to de-notify and abolish the Old Grain Market, Kalka, was published and objections were invited from the dealers and the effected persons within 30 days. No objections were received from the effected persons including the petitioner in response to notification dated 1.10.1987. This fact that the petitioner did not file any objection, however, has been disputed by the petitioner through replication filed to this reply wherein it is stated that the objections were sent through U.P.C. Copies of these are annexed as Annexure A-2. Be that as it may, the situation that was existing in the year 1988 would have completely changed by now. It can be seen from the reply filed by the State that the intention to set up a New Grain Market was expressed in the year 1984. Even if this market had not fully developed or come up in the year 1988, would now can be expected to be fully operational. In fact, this is made out from the reply filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3. In Para Nos.5 and 6 of the reply, it is pointed out that Board has undertaken the work of extensive development and modernization of marketing operations of agricultural produce in the State. This work has been undertaken in a phased manner to cover the entire State of Haryana. It is stated that position existing in the Old Mandi, Kalka is all the more deplorable as there is no proper grain market in Kalka and the shops were scattered and located alongside the main highway. It is then mentioned that the new grain market has been set up on a piece of land measuring 16.7 acres with all the modern infrastructure facilities CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1094 OF 1988 :{ 6 }: such as roads, individual platforms, common platforms, parking, boundary wall, canteen, public toilets, office building and food storage godown etc. It is further pointed out that this New Grain Market has been set up under the Works Assistance project in the year 1972 with all the said facilities involving an investment of about Rs.47 lacs. Further reference has been made to the shops and the plots of various sizes, which have been set up/ear-marked in this market. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 has further brought out in their reply that respondent-Market Board has given ample time and necessary arrangements for shifting to the petitioner and his like to the NGM. Other allegations, including sudden issuance of this notification, have also been denied. Mr.Ganeriwala, representing the petitioner, would point out that no steps or place has been provided to him in the NGM that may have been set up. Rather, his grievance is that there is no vegetable market set up in the NGM and as such, he has not been provided any space to carry on his business. The challenge to the notification, which has been issued, is to be tested on the grounds raised in the petition. Merely because some alternative place is not provided, in my view, would not be a ground to set-aside the impugned notification. There is no provision of law which would require it as an essential condition. The aim behind the move of the respondents to make the petitioner shift is to organise the affairs of the Market Committee. The de-notification has been done keeping in view the public purpose. The right to carry on business at a particular place would not be right guaranteed under CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1094 OF 1988 :{ 7 }: Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Article 19 would not go to create a fundamental right in a citizen to carry on business wherever he chooses. Right to carry on business must be subject to reasonable restriction imposed by Executive in the interest of public conveniences. [See The Nagar Rice and Flour Mills and others Vs. N.Teekappa Gowda & Bros. And others, AIR 1971 SC 246] Any citizen may have a right to sell vegetables in public market or to vend his goods as a hawker moving from place to place but it shall be subject to restrictions as are warranted by clause (6) of Article 19, which is intended to strike balance between individual freedom and social conduct. Reference can be made to J.K.Industries Ltd. And others Vs. Chief Inspector of Factories and Boilers and others, (1996) 6 Supreme Court Cases 665. While talking about Article 19 (1)(g) of the Constitution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the Article guarantees to a citizen the right to practise any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. This right, however, is subject to clause (6) of Article 19 which lays down that nothing in sub-clause (g) of Article 19(1) shall affect the operation of any existing law insofar as it imposes, or prevent the State from making any law imposing in the interest of the general public reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right. Clause (6) of Article 19 is intended to strike a balance between individual freedom and social control. Asking the petitioner to shift to another place to organise for good of General public would be a restriction, which is reasonable. It can not be said that it would lead to violation of any right to carry on business. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1094 OF 1988 :{ 8 }: The petitioner concededly has not applied for allotment of any place to him in the new market. Mere fact that the petitioner was not heard would not be a ground to set-aside the notification. The hearing here, even if envisaged, appears to have been provided when objections were invited. Having done so, the order de-notifying the sub market yard was issued. I do not find any justification to interfere in the action of the Government in issuing this notification. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in the writ petition, moreso, when it has been pointed out before me that in a similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Court had declined to interfere in the quashing in such like notifications. The writ petition, as such, is dismissed. The petitioner would, however, be at liberty to apply for a place in the New Grain Market and if he does so, his application would be considered in accordance with law. July 24, 2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE