Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.MADHAVA REDDY, P.A.CHOUDHARY
P.Chandramouli - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 01-22-80
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - ARTICLE 14 - EQUALITY BEFORE LAW - CLASSIFICATION - REASONABLENESS - ANDHRA PRADESH (AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AND LIVESTOCK) MARKETS ACT, 1966 (AP ACT 23 OF 1966), SEC. 5(1) - NOMINATION OF GROWERS' REPRESENTATIVES TO MARKET COMMITTEE - DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN GROWERS AND TRADERS - VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 14 - SECTION 5(1) DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
Fact of the Case:
The Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (the Act) was enacted to regulate the purchase and sale of notified agricultural produce, livestock, and products of livestock by establishing markets and securing the best price for the farmer. The Act provides for the establishment of market committees, which are the principal legal instruments for the enforcement of the Act's provisions. Market committees have the power to levy fees, conduct sales, and weigh and measure notified agricultural produce. Section 5(1) of the Act provides for the composition of market committees, including the nomination of growers' representatives by the government. The petitioners, growers of agricultural produce and owners of livestock and products of livestock, challenged the constitutional validity of Section 5(1), arguing that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminating between growers and traders in the matter of their representation on the market committee.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Section 5(1) of the Act is unconstitutional as it violates the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution. The court found that the classification made by the Act between growers and traders in the matter of their representation on the market committee is not reasonable and does not bear a nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The court noted that the Act accepts the principle that the interests of growers and traders are best protected by permitting them to elect their own representatives to the market committee, but Section 5(1) departs from this principle by providing for the nomination of growers' representatives by the government. The court found that this differential treatment of growers and traders is not justified and that it results in the denial of effective and genuine representation to growers on the committee. The court also held that Section 5(1) is arbitrary and uncontrolled, as it does not provide any guidelines or standards for the government to follow in nominating growers' representatives.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, violates Article 14 of the Constitution by discriminating between growers and traders in the matter of their representation on the market committee? 2. Whether the classification made by the Act between growers and traders is reasonable and bears a nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The classification made by the Act between growers and traders in the matter of their representation on the market committee is not reasonable and does not bear a nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. 2. The differential treatment of growers and traders is not justified and results in the denial of effective and genuine representation to growers on the committee. 3. Section 5(1) is arbitrary and uncontrolled, as it does not provide any guidelines or standards for the government to follow in nominating growers' representatives.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and declared Section 5(1) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, to be unconstitutional as it violates the equality clause of Article 14 of the Constitution.
( 1 ) THE Comprador economic system established in our country by the East India Company and enforced by the might of the British arms and ocerated for the quick and unjust enrichment of the middle-man and his british Principals had impoverished our farmers and exposed them to ever-recurring famines and pestilence. The honest tiller of the soil whom swift recognized as the benefactor of humanity , had been bled white in our country. Protesting against this, the Mahatma in his statement made under Section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to the Ahmedabad sessions Court in the year 1922. said,"little do town dwellers know how the semistarved masses of india are slowly sinking to lifelessness Little do they know that their miserable comfort represents the brokerage they get for the work they do for the foreign exploiter, that the profits and the brokerage are sucked from the masses Little do they realize that the government established by law in British India is carried on for this exploitation of the masses. No sophistry, no jugglery in figures can explain away the evidence that the skeletons in many villages present to the naked eye I have no doubt whatsoever that both England and the town dwellers of India will have to answer, if there is a God above, for this crime agsinst humanity which is perhaps unequaled in history". In addition, the Indian peasant suffers in common with the farmers all over the world from the economic process of scissors. He has thus today become socially stagnant, economically vulnerable and educationally backward.
( 2 ) THE State from time to time has been taking steps to alleviate his economic suffering. The Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (here in after referred to as the Act ) is one such measure. Its principal mechanism is to establish regulated markets with a hope to secure remunerative prices to the farmer. It seeks to regulate the purchase and sale of notified agricultural produce,live-stock and products of livestock by establishing markets and securing the best price for the fanner. Under its provision the State Government is competent to notify any area as a notified area within whose boundaries market-yards would be established by a market committee. A market committee would be constituted by the Government as a Body corporate for each notified area. The market committee is the principal legal instrument for the enforcement of the provisions of the Act. It has the powers to establish markets at certain places, provide facilities in that market yard and generally supervise the entire business transactions therein. The market committee has power to levy fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock the non-payment on which invites pre secution and punishment in a criminal Court. No person can act within a notified areas as a broker or a carting or a clearing agent, ware houseman, weighman, except in accordance with a licence granted by the market committee. Under Rule 54, market committee is empowered to conduct sale of all the notified agricultural produce, livestock or oroducts of livestock brought into the market yard for sale by the method of open auction or tender systems or any other system specified by the bye-laws made by the market committee. The idea is to secure competitive price and prompt payment. Under Rule 57, all the weighment, measurement or counting as the case may be, of the notified agricultural produce, live stock or products of livestock purchased or sold in the market and those under a storage, pressing, or processing or exporting the notified market area shall be conducted under the control of the market committee through licensed weighmen who shall render such accounts therefor as may be specified by the market committee. The authorized officers of the market committee may at any time without notice examine and test any scale, weight or measure used. In addition to the above, S
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
