Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : BASI REDDI
G.Venkata Ramaiah - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 06-21-63
MADRAS COMMERCIAL CROPS MARKETS ACT, 1933 - CONSTITUTIONALITY - DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWER - ARTICLE 14 - ARTICLE 301 - ARTICLE 305 - NOTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 4 - CONSIDERATION OF OBJECTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS - Held, (1) The power conferred on the Government under Section 2 (i-a) to declare any crop it chooses to, as a commercial crop, does not amount to an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive. In any event, it is not an excessive delegation of legislative power in that it is unguided and uncontrolled. For that very reason, it is violative of the equal protection clause enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. (2) The notifications under Sections 2 (i-a), 3 and 4 issued subsequent to the coming into force of the Constitution, are not repugnant to Article 301 and are saved by Article 305 of the Constitution. (3) The notification under Section 4 is not bad and does not satisfy the requirements of that Section inasmuch as the objections and suggestions made by the petitioners were not duly considered by the Government before issuing that notification.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who are commission agents and growers of chillies in the Guntur district, challenged the validity of the notifications issued by the State Government under Sections 2 (i-a) 3, 4 and the first proviso to Section 5 of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933 (hereinafter referred to as "this Act.") The notifications declared jute, jaggery, onions and chillies as commercial crops, declared the Guntur district as a notified area under this Act in respect of turmeric and chillies, and prohibited the grant or renewal of a licence for the purchase or sale of chillies in respect of any place situated within a radius of ten miles from the limits of the markets established by the Guntur Market Committee.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the power conferred on the Government under Section 2 (i-a) to declare any crop it chooses to, as a commercial crop, does not amount to an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive. The Court also held that the notifications under Sections 2 (i-a), 3 and 4 issued subsequent to the coming into force of the Constitution, are not repugnant to Article 301 and are saved by Article 305 of the Constitution. Further, the Court held that the notification under Section 4 is not bad and does not satisfy the requirements of that Section inasmuch as the objections and suggestions made by the petitioners were not duly considered by the Government before issuing that notification.
Issues: 1. Whether the power conferred on the Government under Section 2 (i-a) to declare any crop it chooses to, as a commercial crop, amounts to an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive. 2. Whether the notifications under Sections 2 (i-a), 3 and 4 issued subsequent to the coming into force of the Constitution, are repugnant to Article 301 and are saved by Article 305 of the Constitution. 3. Whether the notification under Section 4 is bad and does not satisfy the requirements of that Section inasmuch as the objections and suggestions made by the petitioners were not duly considered by the Government before issuing that notification.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The power conferred on the Government under Section 2 (i-a) to declare any crop it chooses to, as a commercial crop, does not amount to an unlawful delegation of legislative power to the executive because the Legislature has laid down the legislative policy and principle, and has afforded guidance for carrying out the said policy before it delegates its subsidiary powers in that behalf. 2. The notifications under Sections 2 (i-a), 3 and 4 issued subsequent to the coming into force of the Constitution, are not repugnant to Article 301 and are saved by Article 305 of the Constitution because the notifications were issued under an existing law and are therefore saved by Article 305 of the Constitution. 3. The notification under Section 4 is not bad and does not satisfy the requirements of that Section inasmuch as the objections and suggestions made by the petitioners were not duly considered by the Government before issuing that notification because the allegation is not factually correct.
Final Decision: All the Writ Petitions failed and were dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THESE are petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the notifications issued by the State Government under Sections 2 (i-a) 3, 4 and the first proviso to Section 5 of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933 (hereinafter referred to as "this Act. ") In each of Writ Petitions Nos. 273 and 274 of 1981, there is only one petitioner; in Writ Petition No. 486 of 1961 there are sixty eight petitioners; in Writ Petition No. 500 of 1961 there are two petitioners; in Writ Petition No. 32 of 1962, there is only one peti-tioner. All the petitioners except the two petitioners in W. P. No. 500 of 1961 claim to he commision agents carrying on business in chillies at various places in the district of Guntur and their business comprises in receiving chillies from agriculturists, storing them if necessary and selling them in the open market on behalf of the agriculturists to agents of buyers from outside the district and elsewhere. They further state that after deducting the expenses and their legitimate commission, the sale amount is paid over to the agriculturists. The two petitioners in W. P. No. 500 of 1961 claim to be growers of chilli crop and their case is that they borrow moneys from commission agents for the purpose of raising chillies and when the crop is harvested, they entrust the chillies to the commission agents for being disposed of by them as and when they would fetch a good price.
( 2 ) THE Government of Andhra, in exercise of the powers conferred on them by section 2 (i-a) of this Act, issued on 12/01/1955 a notification (G. O. Ms. No. 99, Revenue No. 33) declaring jute, jaggery, onions and chillies as commercial crops for the purposes of this Act. Then on 21/08/1957, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a notification under Section 3 of this Act declaring their intention of exercising control over the purchase and sale of turmeric ana chillies in the Guntur district and calling for objections or suggestions from the affected patties. In pursuance of this notification, the petitioners and others made their representations against the proposed action of the Government. The Government, after a careful examination of the objections, came to the conclusion that for regulating the buying and selling of chillies and turmeric, it was necessary to declare the area within the limits oe the Guntur district to be a notified area in respect of chillies and turmeric, which are grown in abundance in that district. Accordingly, by a notification issued under section 4 of this Act on 20/03/1958, they declared the district of Guntur as a notified area under this Act in respect of turmeric and chillies. Subsequently, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, a Market Committee was constituted and markets were established at various places in the district including Guntur town and Narasaraopet. Thereafter a notification was issued under the first proviso to Section 5 of this Act on 2/02/1960 (G. O. Ms. No. 2h, Agriculture No. 36) prohibiting the grant or renewal of a licence for the purchase or sale of chillies in respect of any place situated within a radius of ten miles from the limits of the markets established by the Guntur Market Committee. : The G. O. runs thus Restriction of purchase, sale of groundnut and chillies to the Market Yards in Guntur District under the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933. G. O. Ms. No. 211, Agriculture, 2/02/1960, No. 36. Under the first proviso to Section 5 (1) of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act (Madras Act 20 of 1933), the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby directs that with effect from the date of this order no licence for the purchase or sale of chillies shall he granted or renewed in respect of any place situated within a radius of ten miles from the limits of the markets at (1) Mangalagiri, (2) Krosur, (3) Phirangi-puratn, (4) Siripuram, (5) Macherla, (8) Dachepalle, (7) Vinukonda. (8) Santamaguluru, (9) Martur, (10) A
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
