JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.-The Appellant Talcher Municipality constructed a market purported to be in exercise of its power conferred upon it under Section 295 of the Orissa Municipal Act, 1950. The control of the said market is vested in the Municipal Council in terms of Section 296 thereof. Agricultural produces within the meaning of provisions of the Orissa Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") are bought and sold in the said market.

2. The Respondent-Market Committee sent a requisition dated 13.2.1996 to the Executive Officer of the Appellant stating therein that as it was in possession of the said market where agricultural produces were being bought and sold it was liable to transfer the same in terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act. A similar request was made to hand over the Hat and the land situated at Angarua in terms of a letter dated 19.7.1996.

3. The Appellant having failed and/or neglected to comply with the said statutory requisition, the respondent herein filed a writ petition before the High Court of Orissa praying for a direction upon the appellant for transferring its weekly market popularly known as Jajangi Weekly Market. By reason of the impugned judgment, the said writ petition has been allowed.

4. The core question which falls for consideration is as to whether the land and building of a daily market owned by a Municipality or a Gram Panchayat where notified agricultural produces are bought and sold is liable to be transferred to the Market Committee, if requisition therefor is made.

5. Submission of Mr. P.N. Misra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant is that the said Act which was enacted by the State of Orissa in exercise of its legislative competence contained in Entries 26, 27 and 28 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India: the object whereof being to protect the producers of agricultural produce from being exploited by the middlemen and profiteers and enable the agriculturists to secure a fair return for their produce, the market where pre-dominantly non-agricultural produces are bought and sold, Sub-Section (4) of Section 4 of the Act would not apply. Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on M.C.V.S. Arunachala Nadar Etc. Vs. The State of Madras & Others [(1959) Supp.1 SCR 92] and Belsund Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and Others [(1999) 9 SCC 620]

6. Submission of Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, is that the language used in Section 4(4) of the Act being clear and explicit, the judgment of the High Court must be held to have correctly rendered. The learned counsel pointed out that the vires of Section 4(4) of the Act has not been questioned.

7. The Act has been enacted to provide for better regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for agricultural produce in the State.

8. The Cooperation Department of the Government of Orissa issued notifications dated 2.8.1993 and 19.11.1994 whereby and whereunder various cereals, oilseeds, gur and sugarcane, fruits, vegetable items and animal husbandry products were notified as agricultural produces.

9. By reason of the provisions of the Act not only wholesale but also retail sale of the agricultural produces as also the market wherein the buying and selling of the agricultural produces are carried on is sought to be regulated and controlled. A "market area" and the "market" as defined in Section 2(vii) and 2(vi) respectively are required to be declared as such in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 4 and sub-section (5) of Section 4 respectively.

10. Once the market area is declared, the rights of those dealing in agricultural produces would be governed by the provisions of the said Act.

11. The legislative competence of the State to enact such enactment in exercise of its power under Entries 26, 27 and 28 of List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India is not in dispute