Case: Ramakrishna Hari Hegde &amp; Anr Vs. Market Committee, Sirsi &amp; Ors

had earlier in Mohammad Hussain Gulam Mohammad v. The State of Bombay (1962) 2 SCR 659 = (AIR 1962 SC 97 ), held Sections 4, 4-A, 5, 5-A and 5-AA to be constitutional and that none of the said provisions imposed unreasonable restrictions on the right to carry on trade in the agricultural produce regulated under the Act as such were not violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.9. It is, however, contended that the impugned Notification is violative of Articles 19 (1) (g), 14 and 31 of the Constitution.10. The Notification as we have already stated was issued on 5-1-1965 under Section 4-A of the Act and is in the following terms :-"In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 4-A of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act. 1939 (Bombay Act 22 of 1939) as in force in the Bombay area, and in supersession of Bombay Government. Notification Development Department No. APM 4554, dated 31-8-1954, the Government of Mysore hereby declares the following locality in the market area of the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sirsi of Sirsi Taluka of North Kanara District, to be a Principal market yard for the area with effect from the 15th January, 1965, namely: -Locality:An area measuring about 35 acres and 29 gunthas and 4 acres of Sirsi Totagaras Co-operative Sales Society Ltd., Sirsi in R. S. Nos. 116, 117, 59 and 60 of Sirsi TalukaOn the North by: - Sirsi - Yellapur Main Road and R. S. No. 116.On the South by - R. S. Nos. 55, 57, and portion of R. S. No. 299.On the East by: - Portion of R. S. Nos. 299, 58, 129-A and 118.On the West by: - R. S. Nos. 61, 64 and 68".11. It may be mentioned that the earlier Notification of 31-8-1954 also made in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 4-A of the Act had declared as the Principal Market Yard all godowns, storage places and open places lying within the limits of the Sirsi Municipality and approved by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sirsi for storage and for the purpose of sale of commodities under regulation including the area locally known as Channapattan Galli, Basti Galli and Nadger Galli which had earlier been declared by Notification of the Government in the Development Department dated 24- 4-1951 to be a Market Yard. The effect of the supersession of this Notification by the impugned Notification is that as from 15-1-1965 the area of the 3 Gallis ceased to be the Principal Market Yard and as such no business could be transacted therein on and after that date.12. This position could not be seriously controverted by the learned Advocate for the Respondents. In our view the prohibition implicit in the Notification was unreasonable and to that extent violated the fundamental rights of the Appellants and Respondent 3 to carry on their business because it could not have been postulated that they could immediately in 10 days shift their business to the Principal Market Yard declared by the impugned notification. The learned Advocate for the Market Committee however pointed out that it was never their intention to prohibit at once any business being conducted in the Market Yard in the Gallis, but they had in fact in their proposals to the Government suggested the business in the Gallis should be allowed to be continued for a year or two. Whatever their proposals may have been we have no doubt that the effect of the Notification as long as it is in force is to prohibit the Appellants and Respondent 3 from carrying on business in the Market Yard of the Gallis.13. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the Respondents that the Appellants and Respondent 3 had sufficient time till now to make arrangements to shift their business, as such they are not entitled to complain, but the contention on behalf of the Appellants is that they were entitled to challenge the Notification and as they had invested large amounts in buildings etc., in the 3 Gallis they are justified in asking this Court to direct Respondents to have these areas declared as a sub Market area.While the Government has the power to issue a Notification in public interest and to declare the area specified in the impugned Notification as the Principal Market area, without necessarily declaring other areas simultaneously as sub-Market area, in our view sufficient time should have been given for the Appellants.Respondent 3 and other persons doing business in the area of the 3 Gallis to shift their business. As long as the Notification prohibited them from doing business in those Gallis they had a right to challenge the validity of that Notification. No doubt the Government could have declared the 3 Gallis as sub-Market area but it is not for this Court to arrogate to itself the functions of the Government and direct them to do so merely because that would be one of the ways in which the impugned Notification can be rectified. The learned Advocate for the Market Committee, however, consistent with the stand taken by the Market Committee in its counter before the High Court that it had requested the Government to allow the business in the Gallis to be earned on for one or two years agrees to give one and a half years time for the Appellants and Respondents to enable them to shift during this period, to the Principal Market Yard declared under the impugned Notification and till then permit them to continue their business in the 3 Gallis. The period agreed to in our view is a reasonable period within which the Appellants and Respondent 3 can shift their business to the new Market Area and till then they should not be prohibited from doing business in the Market area of the 3 Gallis as heretofore. In view of this agreement except to give the above direction there is no need to strike down the Notification.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]11. It may be mentioned that the earlier Notification of 31-8-1954 also made in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 4-A of the Act had declared as the Principal Market Yard all godowns, storage places and open places lying within the limits of the Sirsi Municipality and approved by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Sirsi for storage and for the purpose of sale of commodities under regulation including the area locally known as Channapattan Galli, Basti Galli and Nadger Galli which had earlier been declared by Notification of the Government in the Development Department dated 24- 4-1951 to be a Market Yard. The effect of the supersession of this Notification by the impugned Notification is that as from 15-1-1965 the area of the 3 Gallis ceased to be the Principal Market Yard and as such no business could be transacted therein on and after that date.12. This position could not be seriously controverted by the learned Advocate for the Respondents. In our view the prohibition implicit in the Notification was unreasonable and to that extent violated the fundamental rights of the Appellants and Respondent 3 to carry on their business because it could not have been postulated that they could immediately in 10 days shift their business to the Principal Market Yard declared by the impugned notification. The learned Advocate for the Market Committee however pointed out that it was never their intention to prohibit at once any business being conducted in the Market Yard in the Gallis, but they had in fact in their proposals to the Government suggested the business in the Gallis should be allowed to be continued for a year or two. Whatever their proposals may have been we have no doubt that the effect of the Notification as long as it is in force is to prohibit the Appellants and Respondent 3 from carrying on business in the Market Yard of thethe Government has the power to issue a Notification in public interest and to declare the area specified in the impugned Notification as the Principal Market area, without necessarily declaring other areas simultaneously as sub-Market area, in our view sufficient time should have been given for the Appellants.Respondent 3 and other persons doing business in the area of the 3 Gallis to shift their business. As long as the Notification prohibited them from doing business in those Gallis they had a right to challenge the validity of that Notification. No doubt the Government could have declared the 3 Gallis as sub-Market area but it is not for this Court to arrogate to itself the functions of the Government and direct them to do so merely because that would be one of the ways in which the impugned Notification can be rectified. The learned Advocate for the Market Committee, however, consistent with the stand taken by the Market Committee in its counter before the High Court that it had requested the Government to allow the business in the Gallis to be earned on for one or two years agrees to give one and a half years time for the Appellants and Respondents to enable them to shift during this period, to the Principal Market Yard declared under the impugned Notification and till then permit them to continue their business in the 3 Gallis. The period agreed to in our view is a reasonable period within which the Appellants and Respondent 3 can shift their business to the new Market Area and till then they should not be prohibited from doing business in the Market area of the 3 Gallis as heretofore. In view of this agreement except to give the above direction there is no need to strike down the Notification.