Judgement

K. SUBBA RAO, J. : These three appeals by certificate granted by the High Court are directed against the common order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, date 10th July 1953,* dismissing three writ petitions filed by the appellants impugning the validity of the provisions of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act (Mad. 20 of 1933), hereinafter referred to as the Act, and the Rules framed thereunder, and certain notifications issued by the first respondent herein in pursuance thereof.

* See A. I. R. 1954 Madras 621.

2. The Act was passed to provide for the better regulation of the buying and selling of commercial crops in the State of Madras and for that purpose to establish markets and make rules for their proper administration. On 18th May 1951, the State Government issued G. O. No. 1049 (Food and Agriculture Department) extending the provisions of the Act to Ramanathapuram and Tirunelveli Districts in respect of cotton and groundnuts. On 25th February 1952, the State Government issued G. O. No. 251 (Food and Agriculture Department) ordering the constitution of a Market Committee at Koilpatti and Sankarankoil in Tirunelveli District. By a similar G. O., viz., G. O. No. 356 (Food & Agriculture Department) dated 8th March 1952, the Government directed the constitution of a Market Committee at Virudhunagar and markets at (1) Virudhunagar ; (2) Rajapalayam and (3) Sattur in Ramanathapuram District. The Market Committees were duly constituted, and, on 9th January 1953, the Market Committee at Virudhunagar issued a notice stating that the Act and the Rules had come into force in Ramanathapuram District on lst January 1953, and requiring persons who did business in cotton and groundnut to take out licences as provided therein. A further notice dated 17th January 1953, stated that all the traders in cotton and groundnut, who failed to take out licences on or before 15th February 1953, were liable to prosecution. Similar notices dated 22nd January 1953, and 14th February 1953, were issued by the Chairman, Tirunelveli Market Committee at Koilpatti calling upon all traders, producers and weighmen dealing in cotton to take out licences before 28th February 1953, and threatening prosecution for failure to comply therewith. The appellants in the above three appeals and others filed Writ Petitions in the High Court of Madras against (1) the State of Madras; (2) the Collectors of the concerned Districts and (3) the Chairmen of the Market Committees, for the issue of Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forbear from enforcing any or all the provisions of the Act as amended and the Rules and Bye-laws framed thereunder.

3. A Bench of the Madras High Court, consisting of Rajamannar C. J., and Venkatarama Aiyar J., by an order dated 10th July 1953,* dismissed the applications. The learned Judges held that S. 5 (4) (a) of the Act was void to the extent it conferred on the Collector authority to refuse a licence at his own discretion and Rule 37 was void in so far as it prohibited persons whose names had not yet been registered as buyers and sellers, from carrying on business in the notified area. Subject to that, the impugned Act and the Rules were upheld under Art. 19 (6) of the Constitution as a valid piece of marketing legislation. In the result, the applications were dismissed. The aforesaid three appellants have filed these appeals against the order of the High Court in so far as it dismissed their applications.

* See A. I. R. 1954 Madras 621.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder constitute an unreasonable restriction upon the appellants fundamental right to do business and that they not only do not achieve the object for which they are enacted but defeat their purpose. Elaborating this argument he took us through some of the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder in an attempt to establish that the provisions cripple the business of th