Case: Municipal Committee, Amritsar &amp; Anr Vs. State Of Punjab &amp; Ors

is in lawful possession of a piece of land situated in village Hussainpur, Tahsil and Dist. Rupar Punjab) and that for the last ten years be holds a cattle market on that piece of land from the first to the fourth of every month. He also asserted that he had been holding cattle markets on the lands in his lawful possession at Kurali, Anandpur, Saheb, Marunda (District Rupar) within the State of Punjab. According to the petitioner, for the purpose of holding cattle markets on the lands in his occupation at Hussainpur, the petitioner had constructed a well for providing water to the cattle, with sheds, and mangers. He further claimed that he provides chaff-cutters, tents, charpais and all other amenities which are essential for the cattle and the merchants. It appears from the averments made by the petitioner that he is holding cattle fairs. No declaration was made defining any fair area which included the lands of the petitioner. The State, for reasons already set out, is not entitled to hold a cattle fair on the land in the occupation of the petitioner without providing for compensation as guaranteed under Art. 31 (2). But on that account the petitioner is not entitled to hold a cattle fair even on his own lands.Writ Petition No. 365 of 196823. The petitioner is Jagtar Singh. He claims that he has obtained for the period April 1, 1968 to March 31, 1969, from the Municipal Committee, Amritsar, a piece of land on lease called the Ahata near the "Butcher-Khana" known as "Adda Bakar Mandi." The land is used for an enclosure for sheep and goats brought for sale. The petitioner states that he has constructed near the Butcher-Khana ten kothas around a vacant piece of land for enclosure of goats and sheep brought by prospective sellers and has so constructed some rooms where he provides board and lodging to the merchants who come to the Adda Bakar Mandi in connection with their business. He has set out in his petition the manner in which the business is carried on and the charges made by him. It may be sufficient to mention that the petitioner claims that he conducts a cattle market and not a cattle fair.24. The Fair Officer issued a declaration under Section 4 (2) (i) read with Section 2 (d) of the Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Act, 1967, specifying "2 Kilometres from the main building situated in the Cattle Fair Ground at Bakar Mandi outside Lahori Gate" as a fair area for the purpose of controlling, managing, regulating and holding the Catte Fair, Amritsar, at Bakar Mandi outside Lahori Gate. The Fair Officer also addressed a letter to the petitioner dated October 25, 1968, informing him that the Punjab Government had exclusively undertaken the work of holding, managing, controlling and supervising the Cattle Fairs under Section 3 of the Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Act, 1967, and that the petitioner who was carrying on the business of holding cattle fair should stop running the Bakar Mandi. The Fair Officer informed the petitioner that the ground of the Bakar Mandi had already been specified as fair area by him and on that account the petitioner was prohibited to work as commission agent, unless he got a brokers licence under the Act.25. The land in respect of which the declaration has been made as fair area is the land of the Municipal Committee, of which under a licence or a lease the petitioner is in possession. For reasons which we have already set out, the Government of Punjab is not competent to declare the land of the Bakar Mandi a fair area. The notification declaring the Bakar Mandi as fair area is, therefore, invalid.26. By Section 3 of the Act the cattle fairs can be held in the State of Punjab only by the State and by no other person. But prima facie the business carried on by the petitioner is in the nature of a market for sale of sheep and goats brought by intending sellers for slaughter. Such a place cannot be called a fair.27. It was urged on behalf of the State that since the petitioner was collecting brokerage and carrying on the business of a broker, he was bound to take out a licence under Section 9 of the Act. But a person carrying on his business within the fair area lawfully declared is required to obtain a licence, but not in respect of his business in a cattle market.28. The petition filed by Jagtar Singh must, therefore, be allowed and the order declaring the petitioners land as fair area and the intimation calling upon him to stop his business of cattle market is unauthorised.Writ Petitions Nos. 443 and 444 of 196829. The petitioners in these petitions are Narain Singh and another. They claim that they are in "legal possession" of different pieces of land taken on lease within the State of Punjab at Khanna, Doraha (District Ludhiana), Sunam (District Sangrur) and also in other Districts where they have been holding cattle markets for the last many years. They claimed that they provide the prospective sellers and purchasers facilities like cots for resting, drinking water, sheds, mangers, chaff-cutters, tents, light, chowkidars, dry fodder and all other essential amenities. They further claimed that the intending vendors come to their lands with cattle and sell the cattle, bargains being struck through brokers in the market arranged by the petitioners on those pieces of land.30. It is not clear from the averments made in the petitions whether the so-called market is of the nature of a fair. The petitioners are prohibited from holding or conducting a cattle fair, since the enactment of Punjab Act 6 of 1968. The lands belonging to the petitioners have not been included in a cattle fair area under the notification issued by the Fair Officer. Without deciding the question whether the business carried on by the petitioners is in the nature of a fair or a market, we

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

Explanation:
1[ds]The Courts in India have no authority to declare a statute invalid on the ground that it violates the "due process of law." Under our Constitution, the test of due process of law cannot be applied to the statutes enacted by the Parliament or the State legislatures. This Court has definitely ruled that the doctrine of "due process of law" has no place in our Constitutional system: A. K. Gopalan v. The State of Madras, 1950 SCR 88  =(AIR 1950 SC 27  ). Kania, C. J., observed (at p. 120 of SCR)=(at p. 42 ofe contention that the provisions of the Act, and especially the definition of cattle fair" in Section 2 (bb), impose unreasonable restrictions upon the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (b) and. The land in respect of which the declaration has been made as fair area is the land of the Municipal Committee, of which under a licence or a lease the petitioner is in possession. For reasons which we have already set out, the Government of Punjab is not competent to declare the land of the Bakar Mandi a fair area. The notification declaring the Bakar Mandi as fair area is, therefore,a person carrying on his business within the fair area lawfully declared is required to obtain a licence, but not in respect of his business in a cattle market.28. The petition filed by Jagtar Singh must, therefore, be allowed and the order declaring the petitioners land as fair area and the intimation calling upon him to stop his business of cattle market ist that is not the effect of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner informed the Municipal Committee that possession of its land should be handed over so that the State may be able to hold the fair under the provisions of the Punjab Cattle Fairs (Regulation) Act, 1967. Section 3 (1) is intended only to provide for a monopoly in the State to hold cattle fairs and to control, manage and regulate such fairs. The demand made by the Fair Officer asking the Municipal Committee to supply water, electricity and to make sanitary arrangements and make the staff, articles and offices of the Municipal Committee available to the Fair Officer is not warranted by any provision of the Act. The notification issue by the Fair Officer defining the fair area inclusive of the land of Mal Mandi is, therefore, unauthorised. The demand made by the Fair Officer for assistance of the "staff, articles and offices of the Municipality" for holding the fair and the demand for supply of water and electricity and making suitable sanitary arrangements is also uncalled for and unauthorised. The directions must, therefore, be declared invalid.