The provisions of section 3 and rule 3 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967, relating to the publication of notifications under sections 3 and 4 of the Act, are mandatory and not directory.

Headnote:
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING REGULATION ACT - NOTIFICATION - PUBLICATION - MANDATORY - NON-COMPLIANCE - INVALIDITY OF NOTIFICATION - RES JUDICATA - NOT APPLICABLE.
Fact of the Case:

The appellants, members of an unregistered association known as the Kolhapur Grain Merchants Association, challenged certain notifications issued under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963. The trial court declared the notifications null and void and restrained the respondents from enforcing them. The lower appellate court allowed the appeals filed by the respondents and dismissed the appellants' appeal.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the provisions of section 3 and rule 3 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967, relating to the publication of notifications under sections 3 and 4 of the Act, are mandatory and not directory. The court found that the said notifications were not published in the manner required by the statute and the rules, and therefore, they were invalid and inoperative.
Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of section 3 and rule 3 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967, relating to the publication of notifications under sections 3 and 4 of the Act, are mandatory or directory? 2. Whether the notifications in question were published in the manner required by the statute and the rules?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the provisions of section 3 and rule 3 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1967, and held that they are mandatory and not directory. The court reasoned that the object of the provisions is to ensure that the notifications come to the notice of the persons who are going to be affected thereby, and that the use of the word 'shall' in the provisions indicates that the Legislature intended to make them mandatory. 2. The court examined the evidence on record and found that the notifications in question were not published in the manner required by the statute and the rules. The court noted that the notification under section 3 was not published in any vernacular newspaper circulating in the concerned areas, and that the modes of publication prescribed by rule 3 were not complied with.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court, and restored the decree of the trial court. The respondents were ordered to pay the costs throughout.

JUDGMENT - Madon D.P. J.-The appellants are members of an unregistered association known as the Kolhapur Grain Merchants Association and had filed the suit out of which this Second Appeal arises in a representative capacity under rule8 of Order 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The said suit was tried by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur. In the suit the appellants challenged certain notifications issued under the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (Maharashtra Act No. XX of 1964). The appellants' challenge succeeded, and the trial Court declared the said notifications to be null and void, and restrained the respondents from enforcing the said notifications. The trial Court also directed the parties to bear their own costs of the suit. Though the appellants' challenge on certain grounds succeeded, their challenge on the ground that these notifi cations infringed the provisions of Articles 14 and 19(l)(g) of the Constitution of India was negatived. Against the said judgment and decree of the trial Court, not only Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, namely, the State and the Director of Agriculture, Forest and Rural Finance, Government of Maharashtra filed an appeal but Respondents Nos. 3 to 5, namely, the Kolhapur Agricultural Produce Market Committee and the President and the Secretary of the said Committee, also filed an appeal. The appellants also appealed against that part of the judgment which negatived their constitutional challenge to the validity of the said notifications. All these appeals were heard together by the Court of the Assistant Judge at Kolhapur, and by a common judgment the lower appellate Court allowed the appeals filed by the respondent and dismissed the appellants' appeal. The lower appellate Court directed the appellants to pay the costs of the suit and the appeals. It is against this appellate decree that the appellants have preferred this Second Appeal

2. It will be now convenient to set out in some detail the facts which have given rise to this litigation. By a notification dated March 1,1949 issued under the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939 (Bom XXII of 1939), an Agricultural Produce Market Committee was established to regulate the rnarketing of groundnut (shelled and unshelled) and gur in the area of Karvir, Radhanagari and Bhudargad Talukas and Panhala Mahal of the Kolhapur District. By another notification dated March 8,1959 issued under the said Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act the market area of the said Committee was extended so as to include Shanuwadi Taluka of Kolhapur District, and its operation was also extended to regulate the marketing of groundnut (shelled and unshelled) and gur in the said extended area By another notification dated October 6, 1963, also issued under the said 1939 Act, the market area of the said Committee was further extended so as to include the area of 43 villages mentioned in the said notification situate on the north of Vedganga river from Kagal Taluka, and its operation was equally extended to regulate the marketing of groundnut (shelled and unshelled) and gur in the extended area. Thereafter the Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance, Maharashtra State, intended to extend the market area of the said Committee so as to include in it the area of Gagan-Bawada Mahal of the Kolhapur District as also to extend its operations to regulate the marketing of paddy (husked and unhusked), jowar, bajari, wheat, tobacco, cotton (ginned and unginned), chillies, turmeric, gram, gram-dal, tur, tur-dal, udid, udid-dal, masur, masur-dal, mug, mug-dal, onion, peas, val, chola, kulthi, cattle, sheep and goats in addition to groundnut (shelled and unshelled) and gur in the whole of the market area as extended by the said Committee. There does not appear to be any particular dispute that while groundnut and gur gro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document