IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The private interest stands subordinated to the public good.
2. It is true that right to do business is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).
3. Impugned action of the authorities cannot be said to be unreasonable merely because in a given case, they may operate harshly.
4. The reasonableness of the restriction has to be determined in an objective manner and has to be seen from the point of view of the interest of the general public and not merely from the point of view of the persons upon whom the restrictions are imposed.

Headnote:Constitution of India,1950-Article 19(1)(g) -Writ Petitions filed by Appellants wholesale vegetable and fruit vendors engaged in selling vegetables and fruits at Machkhowa market, Gauhati in State of Assam on removal of appellants and other wholesale vendors from Machkhowa market, and instead construction of a new market at Ganeshguri-Appeals against order passed by High Court-Ordinarily everywhere in the world wholesale markets are situated at the outskirts or outside the city limits- No doubt, the shifting of shops of wholesellers would cause some hardships to some individuals, but it is well settled that public interest prevails over the private interests-Again, even though it is true that right to do business is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6)- In adjudging the validity of the restriction the Court has necessarily to approach the question from the point of view of the social interest which the State action intends to promote -Impugned action of the authorities could not be faulted on the ground of lack of reasonableness- As stated in the counter-affidavits, the existing wholesale markets had become the cause of immense traffic congestion in the city, apart from causing diseases, pollution etc- Hence, shifting the wholesale markets to the outskirts of the City or beyond was clearly reasonable-Appeals disposed off (Paras 10 to 22)
       Facts of the Case :
        Writ Petitions were filed herein in the instant case by Appellants wholesale vegetable and fruit vendors engaged in selling vegetables and fruits at Machkhowa market, Gauhati in State of Assam on removal of appellants and other wholesale vendors from Machkhowa market, and instead construction of a new market at Ganeshguri.
        2. Present Appeals have been filed against order passed by High Court.
       Findings of the Court :
        No doubt, the shifting of shops of wholesellers would cause some hardships to some individuals, but it is well settled that public interest prevails over the private interests.Again, even though it is true that right to do business is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6). In adjudging the validity of the restriction the Court has necessarily to approach the question from the point of view of the social interest which the State action intends to promote .Impugned action of the authorities could not be faulted on the ground of lack of reasonableness. As stated in the counter-affidavits, the existing wholesale markets had become the cause of immense traffic congestion in the city, apart from causing diseases, pollution etc. Hence, shifting the wholesale markets to the outskirts of the City or beyond was clearly reasonable. Appeals were disposed of

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.4.2008 passed by the Gauhati High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 8081 of 2005.

3. The appellants are wholesale vegetable and fruit vendors and were engaged in selling vegetables and fruits at Machkhowa market, Gauhati in the State of Assam since 1995. However, they had to vacate their respective possession of the premises in pursuance to the orders of the Gauhati High Court. Machkhowa market is situated close to the railway station and is inside the city and the land thereon has been allotted to the Department of Handloom and Textiles, Government of Assam for the purpose of construction of an administrative building. For this purpose it was proposed to remove the appellants and other wholesale vendors from the Machkhowa market, and instead a new market has been constructed at Ganeshguri. It was submitted by the appellants and others that there is not enough space in the Ganeshguri municipal market for the appellants and others. We are not referring to the various orders issued by the Gauhati High Court from time to time.

4. In one of the counter affidavits filed before us it has been stated that all parts of the city of Gauhati, including Machkhowa is very congested and hence the appellants and other wholesellers should not be allowed to do business of wholesale fruits and vegetables inside the city limits as a large number of heavy and medium goods vehicles have to enter the city to go to that wholesale market and consequently the area becomes very congested causing serious traffic problems and also hazard of health and hygiene and pollution. It is stated that the government of Assam has initiated steps to develop the fruits and vegetables wholesale market at the outskirts of Gauhati at Garchuk near the bypass on an area of 8 bighas of land and the foundation stone of the project market was laid by the Chief Minister on 25.2.2011. It has been further submitted that development work is taking place at a high speed at Garchuk.

5. We are of the opinion that the wholesale market of fruits and vegetables for supplying of these goods to Gauhati and elsewhere should be at the outskirts or outside the city limits of Gauhati to avoid problems of traffic congestion, health and hygiene, pollution etc.

6. Citizens ordinarily do not go to wholesale markets, but they go to retail markets. Hence if the wholesale market is not situated within the city limits it will not cause any inconvenience to the public in general. On the other hand, if such wholesale market is situated within the city limits, there will be everyday hazards of traffic congestion because of hundreds of vehicles entering the city carrying goods for the wholesale markets resulting in traffic congestion, air and noise pollution etc., apart from posing health and hygiene problems. A large number of these goods will be dumped on the roads causing huge collection of waste and garbage. The rotting goods may spread diseases. They may also attract stray animals.

7. Ordinarily everywhere in the world wholesale markets are situated at the outskirts or outside the city limits. No doubt, the shifting of the shops of the wholesellers will cause some hardships to some individuals, but it is well settled that public interest prevails over the private interests. Thus, in Friends Colony Development Committee vs. State of Orissa1 AIR 2005 SC 1 (vide para 22) this Court observed :

“The private interest stands subordinated to the public good”.

8. Similarly, in Sales Tax Officer vs. Shree Durga Oil Mills,2 (1998) 1 SCC 572 (vide para 21) this Court observed:

“Public interest must override any consideration of private loss or gain”.

9. It is true that right to do business is a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, but this right is subject to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(6).

10. It may be mentioned that to test the reasonability of a rest

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2011 Supreme(SC) 825

Cases Referred (12)

Judicial Analysis