SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.M. SIKRI, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
Ramakrishna Hari Hegde and another, Appellants
Versus
The Market Committee, Sirsi and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 1072 of 1966, D/-15-1-1971.
Advocates appeared
Mr. V. M. Tarkunde, Sr. Advocate (Mr. Naunit Lal Advocate with him), for Appellants- Mr. R. B. Datar, Advocate, for Respondent No, 1; M/s. S. K. Dholakia and S. P. Nayar, Advocates, for Respondent No. 2.
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 31 - Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act. 1939 - Section 4 (1) , 4-A , 5-AA, 26 and 27 - Business - Market Yard - Challenged - Appeal is by Special Leave - Bombay Legislature had passed Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act. 1939 (Act of 1939) and thereafter made rules under the Act known as Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Rules hereinafter referred to as Act and Rules respectively - In under provisions of Section 4 (1) of Act Government of Bombay declared town of Sirsi and various surrounding villages, 59 in number, as a market area in respect of Areca, Pepper and Cardimom and by Notification dated had also declared 3 Gallis referred to above as Market Yard under Act - In 1954 Act was amended by addition of Section 4-A to which a reference will be made presently - After amendment of said Act, on Government of Bombay Notified three Gallis of Channapattan, Basti and Nadged which previously had been declared as a Market Yard, as Principal Market Yard of said Market area under Section 4-A (2) proviso – Held, Act was amended by addition of Section 4-A which under sub-s. (1) makes it necessary for each Market area to have one Principal Market Yard and one or more Sub-Market Yards as may be necessary - Proviso requires that one of enclosures, buildings or localities declared to be market yards before commencement of the amendment of that section, shall be declared to be the Principal Market Yard for Market area and others, if any, to be one or more Sub-Market Yards for area, subject to such variation as may be necessary - Declaration of Market area subject to Section 5-A has effect of prohibiting purchase or sale of agricultural produce in any place in that area except in area declared as a Principal Market Yard or Sub-market yard or yards, if any - This Court had earlier in Mohammad Hussain Gulam Mohammad v. The State of Bombay (1962) 2 SCR 659 held Sections 4, 4-A, 5, 5-A and 5-AA to be constitutional and that none of said provisions imposed unreasonable restrictions on right to carry on trade in agricultural produce regulated under Act as such were not violative of Article 19 (1) (g) of Constitution – Order accordingly.
Judgment
P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.: - This Appeal is by Special Leave against the Judgment of the Mysore High Court dismissing the Writ Petition filed by the Appellants and Respondent Ho. 3 against Respondents 1 and 2, the Market Committee, Sirsi and the State of Mysore respectively, by which they challenged the Notification of the Government of Mysore No. DPC 206 CMD 64 (i) dated 5th January 1965. The Town of Sirsi in the North Canara which wee once part of the Bombay State is one of the leading markets for Areca, Cardamom and Pepper. The Appellants have been carrying on business in these 3 commodities on a large scale for many years in this town mainly in the localities comprising Channapattan Galli Basti Galli and Nadged Galli, while the Respondent 3 who is a dealer in the said commodities was carrying on business in Nadged Galli. In the Channapattan Galli there are nearly 20 Commission Agents who own shops and godowns who also deal in these commodities. It was stated that the three Gallis constitute the main market where wholesale business in the aforesaid commodities is being carried on for more than a century.
2. The Bombay Legislature had passed the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act. 1939 (Act of 1939) and thereafter made rules under the Act known as Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Rules hereinafter referred to as the Act and Rules respectively. In 1951 under the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Act the Government of Bombay declared the town of Sirsi and various surrounding villages, 59 in number, as a market area in respect of Areca, Pepper and Cardimom and by Notification dated 24th April 1951 had also declared the 3 Gallis referred to above as the Market Yard under the Act. In 1954 the Act was amended by the addition of Section 4-A to which a reference will be made presently. After the amendment of the said Act, on 31-8-1954 the Government of Bombay Notified the three Gallis of Channapattan, Basti and Nadged which previously had been declared as a Market Yard, as the Principal Market Yard of the said Market area under Section 4-A (2) proviso. After this declaration it is said the Appellants invested large amounts in buildings which are worth ten lacs of Rupees and improved their trade. Similarly in the Nadged Galli the properties of Commission Agents are worth about Rs. 5 lacs and in the Basti Galli the business premises are worth about Rs. 2 lacs.
3. It is alleged that Shri Hegde Kadve is a Congressman and as the Chairman of the Market Committee and also as the Chairman of the Sirsi Totgars Co-operative Society and President of the Taluka Board had considerable personal influence over the Congress Ministry and consequently prevailed on the Government to grant to the Market Committee free of cost land measuring about 10 acres and 37 gunthas for a market at a distance of more than a mile from the present market., which was divided into plots, on which he managed to get shops, godowns and offices constructed with the money secured by the Society as a loan from the Government at a very low rate of interest. The Market Committee disposed of eleven sites to private parties and also allowed the Co-operative Society to construct premises for a Rice Mill, but notwithstanding these constructions the new site for the Market has no amenities. The impugned Notification had the effect of prohibiting persons from carrying on business in the said three main commodities at the old market Yard, and has thus destroyed the business of traders including that of the Appellants. The new site it was said was only so declared with a view to confer on the Co-operative Society a monopoly in trade as it would not be possible for traders to invest money and construct new buildings and godowns for carrying on trade at the new market site. The Notification was thus challenged as being ultra vires of the provisions of the Act, illegal, arbitrary, capricious and discriminatory, violating Articles 14, 19 (1) (g) and 31 of the Constitution.
4. T
Referred to : Mohammed flussain GulamMohamufodaltd Anotiurv. The State of Bombay and Another
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.