Case: Krishna Kumar Vs. Municipal Committee

the owner of the grain so brought, the bye laws provide several regulations intended for his benefit and for the obligations and liabilities incurred by him in stocking his produce at the market. He has to pay the market dues to the Municipality for which he gets a receipt. All sales of grain, except less than a bag, are to be made by auction conducted by the Moharrir of the Municipality. If the seller accepts the bid then the sale is made to the highest bidder and the purchaser is bound to purchase the grain at that price. Thereafter the purchaser has to pay to the seller forthwith two rupees per cart if he has not already deposited twenty five rupees as security with the Municipality. The purchaser then gets the grains measured between sunrise and sunset and has to pay to the seller the entire sale price within twenty four hours of the bargain. The sale price must be paid to the seller in the presence of the Municipal Moharrir of the market. The purchaser then has to fill in certain entries in the Ganj receipts in the possession of the seller. The grain remaining on the ground after the measurement is over, belongs to the seller and no broker, measurer or hamal is entitled to any share of it. Under Bye law 21, no deduction in kind or cost for any grain or commodity exposed for sale or purchase can be demanded by the buyer, Adatyas or weighmen on account of charity, alms, private service or on any other plea. The benefit and the protection afforded by these provisions would not be available to the owner of the grain for sale in the market if the receipts and passes in question were issued in someone elses name and that person is regarded in the records of the Municipality as the owner of the grain. The records of the Municipality, however, should contain an accurate and faithful statement about the transactions of sale and purchase in the market belonging to it and controlled and managed by it. Neither in law nor on the grounds of morality can such records be expected to be otherwise. The materials before us do disclose that for some time the practice of issuing the receipts and passes in question in the name of Adatyas with respect to sales of grain had grown up and was thought at first to be beneficial to the owners of the grain who brought their produce to the market for sale. In due course, it was, however, realised that in fact this had become an evil practice resulting in loss to the owners of the grain. We have no good reason to doubt the case of the Municipality to the effect that simple villagers, owners of the grain, often were not paid the full amount of the sale price of their grain and in some cases no payment at all was made to them. It was due to the complaints received by the Municipality that the resolution dated 4-9-1949 was passed with a view to effectively stop the continuance of such practice. The Municipality does not deny the petitioner entry into the market on legitimate business as will appear from its affidavit. What it insists on is that the receipts and passes in question shall be issued in the name of the owner of the grain brought to the market for sale. We think that the Municipality is within its rights to refuse to issue receipts and passes to anyone except the owner with respect to the grain brought to the market for sale. No provision of law has been brought to our notice which gives the right to the petitioner to have receipts and passes issued in his name with respect to grain which does not belong to him. The impugned resolution does not in terms prevent the petitioner from carrying on his business as an Adatya. That resolution merely prohibits employees of the Municipality from issuing Ganj receipts to Adatyas. It was within the competence of the Municipality to direct its employees in that way and no right of the petitioner can be said to have been violated, having regard to the real purpose for which the resolution was passed.10. Even if the petitioner has a fundamental right under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on his business as an Adatya, the bye laws of the Municipality do not constitute a general prohibition against him in carrying on such business. The Municipality asserts in its affidavit that by the resolution dated 4-9-1949 it did stop the system of charging "adat" from the sellers of grain by the petitioner and other commission agents carrying on business in the market, as this system was not warranted by any bye law regulating business in the market. It would be reasonable to infer from this admission and the absence of any mention (sic) of an Adatya of a seller of grain in Bye law 5(a) that it was (sic not) intended by the bye laws to prohibit the petitioner and other Adatyas of sellers of grain in the market from carrying on their business as such and (sic but only prohibited them from) receiving Ganj receipts in their own names as sellers though they were in fact merely agents and not owners of the grain to be sold. In our opinion, this amounts to a restriction on the exercise of the petitioners occupation as an Adatya of a seller of grain but does not amount to a total prohibition. Having regard to the evidence that the market, of which the Municipality is the owner, is primarily intended for the sale of produce of agriculturists and having regard to the various bye laws which are intended for the protection of such sellers, the restriction is a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioner. That being so, the petitioners grievance that his fundamental right has been violated cannot be legally sustained.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]The Municipality in its affidavit has denied that those receipts were issued to any Adatya. These receipts were issued to the owners who brought grain to the market. There is no reason to doubt the affidavit of the Municipality. We are, accordingly of the opinion that there is no reliable material before us to establish that the petitioner is being discriminated against. In such circumstances, there could be no question, if it ever arose, of infringement by the Municipality of the fundamental right under Art.14 of the Constitution.8. We have examined the bye laws framed by the Municipality and we find that none of its provisions violates any fundamental right of any citizen ofcareful reading of the bye laws indicates that what the Municipality aimed at was that persons should enter the market on legitimate business. Indeed, the petitioner himself relies on Bye law 5(a) for his claim that there is nothing in it to prevent an Adatya of sellers of grain from entering the market and carrying on hisvirtue of this resolution Nakka and Ganj receipts and passes are not issued to the petitioner by the Municipality. Such receipts and passes are issued to the owner of the grain who brings his produce to the market for sale. That the owner of the grain sold at the market has a right to ask for and is entitled to have such receipts and passes issued to him seems obviousbye laws of the Municipality contain no provision for the issuing of Nakka and Ganj receipts and passes in the name of the Adatya of the owner of the grain brought for sale. With reference to the owner of the grain so brought, the bye laws provide several regulations intended for his benefit and for the obligations and liabilities incurred by him in stocking his produce at thebenefit and the protection afforded by these provisions would not be available to the owner of the grain for sale in the market if the receipts and passes in question were issued in someone elses name and that person is regarded in the records of the Municipality as the owner of the grain. The records of the Municipality, however, should contain an accurate and faithful statement about the transactions of sale and purchase in the market belonging to it and controlled and managed by it. Neither in law nor on the grounds of morality can such records be expected to be otherwise. The materials before us do disclose that for some time the practice of issuing the receipts and passes in question in the name of Adatyas with respect to sales of grain had grown up and was thought at first to be beneficial to the owners of the grain who brought their produce to the market for sale. In due course, it was, however, realised that in fact this had become an evil practice resulting in loss to the owners of the grain. We have no good reason to doubt the case of the Municipality to the effect that simple villagers, owners of the grain, often were not paid the full amount of the sale price of their grain and in some cases no payment at all was made to them. It was due to the complaints received by the Municipality that the resolution dated 4-9-1949 was passed with a view to effectively stop the continuance of such practice. The Municipality does not deny the petitioner entry into the market on legitimate business as will appear from its affidavit. What it insists on is that the receipts and passes in question shall be issued in the name of the owner of the grain brought to the market for sale. We think that the Municipality is within its rights to refuse to issue receipts and passes to anyone except the owner with respect to the grain brought to the market for sale. No provision of law has been brought to our notice which gives the right to the petitioner to have receipts and passes issued in his name with respect to grain which does not belong to him. The impugned resolution does not in terms prevent the petitioner from carrying on his business as an Adatya. That resolution merely prohibits employees of the Municipality from issuing Ganj receipts to Adatyas. It was within the competence of the Municipality to direct its employees in that way and no right of the petitioner can be said to have been violated, having regard to the real purpose for which the resolution was passed.10. Even if the petitioner has a fundamental right under Art.19(1)(g) of the Constitution to carry on his business as an Adatya, the bye laws of the Municipality do not constitute a general prohibition against him in carrying on such business. The Municipality asserts in its affidavit that by the resolution dated 4-9-1949 it did stop the system of charging "adat" from the sellers of grain by the petitioner and other commission agents carrying on business in the market, as this system was not warranted by any bye law regulating business in the market. It would be reasonable to infer from this admission and the absence of any mention (sic) of an Adatya of a seller of grain in Bye law 5(a) that it was (sic not) intended by the bye laws to prohibit the petitioner and other Adatyas of sellers of grain in the market from carrying on their business as such and (sic but only prohibited them from) receiving Ganj receipts in their own names as sellers though they were in fact merely agents and not owners of the grain to be sold. In our opinion, this amounts to a restriction on the exercise of the petitioners occupation as an Adatya of a seller of grain but does not amount to a total prohibition. Having regard to the evidence that the market, of which the Municipality is the owner, is primarily intended for the sale of produce of agriculturists and having regard to the various bye laws which are intended for the protection of such sellers, the restriction is a reasonable restriction on the fundamental right of the petitioner. That being so, the petitioners grievance that his fundamental right has been violated cannot be legally sustained.