Provisions imposing an obligation on commission agents to deduct Co-operative Society dues from the sale price of agricultural produce are valid and reasonable if they are enacted in the interest of agricultural credit primary Co-operative Societies and the agriculturists themselves, and if they aim to link credit with marketing and facilitate the recovery of dues from agriculturists who have taken loans from Co-operative Societies for growing agricultural produce.

JUDGMENT - C.S. DHARMADHIKARI, J.:---This writ petition is filed by the petitioners, which is an Association of Merchants at Shirpur of Dhule District. The writ petition is filed on behalf of the members of the Association, who are licence-holders of the Shirpur Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Shirpur, respondent No. 3, and are carrying on business as commission agents. The main challenge in this petition is to the provisions of section 48-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, section 30-A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act and the sub-rule framed under bye-law No. 46 by the Market Committee.

2. Shri Setalvad and Shri Rege, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended before us that the commission agents operating within the Market Area of the respondent No. 3 Market Committee cannot be compelled to deduct the amount due to the Co-operative Societies. The provisions of section 48-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and the sub-rule framed under Bye-law No. 46 are wholly violative of the petitioners fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India since they impose an unreasonable restriction. Similar is the position with section 30-A of the Marketing Act. It is not open to any authority to compel a person to act as its collecting agent; more so when there is no payment or remuneration paid for the said services. The said restrictions is not only unreasonable, but it has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. No amount is paid to the commission agent for this service, but the amount is recovered by the Market Committee by charging a commission. It was then contended that in any case the sub-rule framed under the said Bye-law is beyond the scope of the Act and the rules or even the said Bye-law since no collecting centres have been opened in that behalf. The provisions also do not contemplate any discharge qua the commission agent after the recovery of the amount. Thus, though the commission agent is obliged to deduct the amount payable to a Co-operative Society, no discharge is granted to him, nor any remuneration is being paid for the said services. Thus, in substance it amounts to casting an onerous burden upon the commission agent which is wholly unreasonable and has to nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the Marketing Act or the Co-operative Societies Act.

3. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondents that the sub-rule framed under Bye-law No. 46 is in tune with the scheme of the Act as well as the provisions of section 48-A of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act and section 30-A of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act. Sections 48-A and 30-A are enacted in the interest of the general public so as to provide a machinery for the recovery of the dues of the Co-operative Societies, namely the loans advanced to agriculturists for carrying out agricultural operations. If such a provision is made in the Act, then the recovery of the loan amount becomes impossible and, therefore, this salutary provision has been made in the Act. The sub-rule framed under Bye-law No. 46 is in tune with these provisions. The duty cast upon the commission agent is part and parcel of the conditions of his licence. Even if it is assumed that there is a restriction on his right to carry on business, the said restriction is reasonable and has been imposed in the public interest. It is also contended by the respondents that the said sub-rule has been framed in consultation with the representatives of the tranders and commission agents and, therefore, the petitioners are also parties to the said decision and hence it is not open for them to challenge the same in this writ petition. Even otherwise since the duty is cast in consultation with the representatives of the traders and commission agents, it is quite clear that the restriction imposed is reasonable and has been imposed in the public inte

Click Here to Read the rest of this document