1996 Supreme(Bom) 95

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.P. Shah A.S. Venkatachala Moorthy, JJ.
Sukhraj Bhikchand Jain.... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra another.... Respondents.
Writ Petition Nos. 4739 5866 of 1987, decided on 15-2-1996.
Advocates appeared :
R.G. Ketkar, for the petitioners.
V.M. Purshuram, A.G.P., for the respondents.

Headnote:14-See Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1964-Sections 32-Aand 32-B (as amended in 1987).

       Articles 14 and 15-See Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act. 1964-Sections 5. 8 (1) to (3) and 52(13) (as amended in 1987).

       Articles 14, 19 and 226-Committee-It includes representative of traders and one expert member-In case of arbitrary action Dispute Sub-Committee constituted by market committee aggrieved party can always come before High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Section 10(1) of the Act, as it stands today, provides for settlement of disputes between buyers and sellers of their agents including any disputes regarding the quality or weight or payment of any agricultural produce or any matter in relation to the regulation of marketing of agricultural produce in the market area, the Market Committee of that area shall constitute a Dispute Sub-Committee.

       There is a representative for the traders and that apart there is also one member who, in the opinion of the Director, is an expert in the marketing of agricultural produce. Further more, the Vice- Chairman of the Market Committee shall be the Chairman and acts with responsibility and is a public servant. It is not as if the Dispute is decided by a single person. The Sub-Committee which consists of five members and which also includes the representative of traders, only decides the dispute. Whatever grievance the petitioners have, can put forth before the dispute Sub-Committee. One of the members, being a trader, certainly will look after the interests of all traders. That being so, there is absolutely no basis for the petitioners to apprehend that the functioning of the Dispute Sub-Committee could be wholly arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The petitioners can always come before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if the Dispute Sub-Committee constituted by the Market Committee acts arbitrarily.

       There is no dispute that when compared to the traders, the agriculturists (growers) are in very large number. As already pointed out, the Act is intended to help and protect the interests of the producers/growers who were subjected to exploitation and that is the reason for the majority representation being given the producers. If, the Legislature in its wisdom having regard to the object sought to be achieved by the Act and also having regard to the large number of growers of agricultural produce, has given a larger representation to them on the Market Committee than the traders who are infinitesimally few as compared to growers and given a chance to the growers alone to become Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Market Committee, that legislation cannot be struck down as discriminatory. It is not for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the correctness or otherwise of the same. It is ultimately for the Legislature to consider and to decide.

       Under Section 13(1), it lays down that every Market Committee shall consist, members enumerated in this section. One could see that the total number of members comes to eighteen.

       Section 13(1)(a) deals with, of course, a Market Committee, but this is with regard to the area comprising Greater Bombay and Turbhe Village in Thane Taluka of Thane District. The Act would make a distinction and as far as this Market Committee is concerned, it would consist of twenty members. So the intention appears to be in deleting the word "eighteen" is that the Act deals with two kinds of Market Committees; a Market Committee where there will be only eighteen members and the other Market Committee where there will be twenty members. That being so, there is no substance in the grievance of the petitioners that by deleting the word "eighteen" that the Market Committee can have unlimited number of members and which would prejudice the interests of the petitioners.

       The petitioners also contended that by virtue of amendment, now the Chairman 8IId the Vice-Chairman of the Market Committee can be only amongst the elected agriculturist members. According to them, the result is that none of the traders who are members of the Market Committee can ever be eligible to be a Chairman or Vice Chairman of the Market Committee. According to the petitioners, the entire approach on the part of the 1st respondent is arbitrary and this would seriously prejudice the petitioners right under Article 19 of the Constitution.

       Here again, the petitioners contention cannot be accepted. As already referred to earlier, the Act is enacted to regulate the marketing of agricultural produce and certain other produce with a view to protect the agriculturists from exploitation by unscrupulous elements in trade practice. It came to the notice of the Legislature certain deficiencies and shortcomings in the principal Act and after so considering, the Legislature passed the Amending Act of XXVII of 1987. If the Legislature in its wisdom having regard to the object sought to be achieved by the Act and also having regard to the larger number of growers of agricultural produce, has given a larger representation to them on the Market Committee than the traders and given a chance to the growers alone to become Chairman and Vice-Chairman of a Market Committee. That legislation cannot be struck down as discriminatory.

       The Division Bench of the Madras High Court had an occasion to consider a similar provision in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (The Act XXVII of 1987). The Madras High Court took the similar view holding that it is ultimately for the Legislature to decide and restrict as to who can contest or who can be elected as a Chairman of the Market Committee.

       Sections 2(1)(m), 29(2)(vii), 30 and 31(1), (2) and (3) (as amended in 1987)-Scope of.

       If no rules have been framed in respect of enforcement of a particular provision of the Act, then obviously such provision in the Act cannot be enforced till such rules are framed. The word prescribed has been defined in Section 2(1)(m) of the Act, viz. Prescribed means prescribed by rules made under this Act. That being so, the petitioners are not put to any prejudice by virtue of such a provision in the Act. If the concerned authority enforces the provision of the Act before framing of the rules, then he can always approach the High Court for proper remedies.

       Chapter IX of the Act deals with penalties, i.e. penalty for contravention of Section 6, penalty for not complying with directions under Section 26, penalty for making or recovering trade allowance, penalty for failure to obey order under Section 40, penalty for contravention of Section 42, general provisions for punishment of offences and compounding of offence. Now reading of the above provisions would show that a market committee has power to levy, fees, charges, impose fine or penalties etc. Now Section 29 deals with powers and duties of the market committee. While enumerating the powers and duties of the market committee, what is stated in the said provision is that the market committee shall levy, charge, recover and receive the amount due to the market committee, if the market committee imposes any levy, fees, or charges without power or authority under the Act, then certainly the petitioners can have a grievance and can approach proper forum for redressal of his grievance.

       Sections 5, 8(1) to (3) and 52(B) (as amended in 1987)-Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 226-Liceitce-Suspension or cancellation of-It can be done only on giving reasonable opportunity for showing cause then against.

       It may be pointed out that these provisions of Section 8(1) to 8(3) continue to be in the statute and are very much in force even on today. So the position prior to 1987 i.e. before the amendment and after the amendment has been that the market committee, for reasons to be recorded in writing may suspend of cancel a licence for any of the reasons enumerated in Section 8(1) to 8(1) (e). A reading of Section 8(3) would show that such suspension of cancellation can be done only on giving a reasonable opportunity to show-cause against such suspension of cancellation. In other words, if there is a violation of the conditions by a trader, what the market committee has to do is (before suspending or cancelling a licence) first it has to issue a show cause notice to a trader. Obviously, for such purpose, the market committee which consists of 18/20 members, has to meet and decide. Now, after giving of such a notice, a trader must be given sufficient time to show cause for the said notice. Then again the market committee has to meet and examine the explanation given by a trader and then decide whether a traders licence is liable to be suspended or it is a fit case where cancellation of licence is called for. Needless to mention that this entire procedure would take several weeks and prior to 1987, i.e. before this amendment of even as the provisions stand today there has been no power for the market committee to pass an order of interim suspension of a licence pending final decision to suspend or cancel, to meet the gravity of situation. By the amendment, i.e. Section 8(1) (A) what is sought to be done is, that in case, if it is found that a trader is violating any of the conditions of a licence, then the Chairman and Secretary acting jointly for the reasons to be recorded in writing by order can suspend a licence for a period not exceeding 15 days to prevent continuance of mischief, damage or lost by a trader to the market committee. This power is necessary to take immediate and prompt action against erring licence. That apart, the market committee can meet in the meantime and decide its course of action. As the market committee consists of 18/20 members (as the case may be) and as it is not possible and practicable for the market committee to meet immediately, i.e. in a few hours, this power of interim suspension for a period not exceeding 15 days has been rightly given to the Chairman and the Secretary who will normally be available on the spot. The petitioners apprehension that the Chairman of the market committee would, in all probabilities, misuse power for some personal reasons, is not well-founded for two reasons : (1) it is not as if the Chairman alone is passing the order. The order has to be passed by both the Chairman as well as the Secretary that too only for a period not exceeding 15 days; (ii) Even assuming both of them act arbitrarily and pass patently erroneous order, the petitioners have got a right of appeal under Section 52-B of the Act. They can file an appeal and obtain necessary orders. The petitioners cannot, by imagining that the power will be misused, persuade this Court to strike down the said provision. As already seen, but for this provision the market committee will be totally helpless to take an immediate and prompt action when a trader violates the conditions of the licence. As discussed above, the Act as stood prior to 1987, there was no power of interim suspension by which the licence of a trader could be suspended on the spot to prevent any loss or damage to the market committee. The petitioners are under the wrong assumption that Section 8 (1- A) replaces Section 8(1) to 8(3).

       Section 10 (as amended in 1987)-Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19 and 226-Commlttee-It includes representative of traders and one expert member-In case of arbitrary action Dispute Sub-Committee constituted by market committee aggrieved party can always come before High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

       Section 10(1) of the Act, as it stands today, provides for settlement of disputes between buyers and sellers or their agents including any disputes regarding the quality or weight or payment of any agricultural produce or any matter in relation to the regulation of marketing of agricultural produce in the market area, the market committee of that area shall constitute a Dispute Sub-Committee.

       There is a representative for the traders and that apart there is also one member who, in the opinion of the Director, is an expert in the marketing of agricultural produce. Further more, the Vice- Chairman of the market committee shall be the Chairman and acts with responsibility and is a public servant. It is not as if the dispute is decided by a single person. The Sub-Committee which consists of five members and which also includes the representative of traders, only decides the dispute. Whatever grievance the petitioners have, can put forth before the Dispute Sub-Committee. One of the members, being a trader, certainly will look after the interests of all traders. That being so, there is absolutely no basis for the petitioners to apprehends that the functioning of the Dispute Sub-Committee could be wholly arbitrary and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The petitioners can always come before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Dispute Sub-Committee constituted by the market committee act arbitrarily.

       There is no dispute that when compared to the traders, the agriculturists (growers) are in very large number. As already pointed out, the Act is intended to help and protect the interests of the producers/growers who were subjected to exploitation and that is the reason for the majority representation being given to the producers. If, the Legislature in its wisdom having regard to the object sought to be achieved by the Act and also having regard to the large number of growers of agricultural produce, has given a larger representation to them on the market committee than the tradelS who are infinitesimally few as compared to growers and given a chance to the growers alone to become Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the market committee, that legislation cannot be struck down as discriminatory. It is not for this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to examine the correctness or otherwise of the same. It is ultimately for the Legislature to consider and to decide.

       Under Section 13(1), it lays down that every market committee shall consist of members enumerated in this section. One could see that the total number of members comes to eighteen.

       Section 13(1)(a) deals with, of course, a market committee, but this is with regard to the area comprising Greater Bombay and Turohe Village in Thane Taluka of Thane District. The Act would make a distinction and as far as this market committee is concerned, it would consist of twenty members. So the intention appears to be in deleting the word "eighteen" is that the Act deals with two kinds of market committees; a market committee where there will be only eighteen members and the other market committee where there will be twenty members. That being so, there is no substance in the grievance of the petitioners that by deleting the word "eighteen" that the market committee can have unlimited numbers of members and which would prejudice the interests of the petitioners.

       The petitioners also contended that by virtue of amendment, now the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman of the market committee can be only amongst the elected agriculturists members. According to them, the result is that none of the traders who are members of the market committee can ever be eligible to be a Chairman or Vice Chairman of the market committee. According to the petitioners, the entire approach on the part of the 1st respondent is arbitrary and this would seriously prejudice the petitioners right under Article 19 of the Constitution.

       Here again, the petitioners contention cannot be accepted. As already referred to earlier, the Act is enacted to regulate the marketing of agricultural produce and certain other produce with a view to protect the agriculturist from exploitation by unscrupulous elements in trade practice. It came to the notice of the Legislature certain deficiencies and short comings in the principle Act held after so considering, the Legislature passed the Amending Act of XXVII of 1987, if the Legislature in its wisdom having regard to the object sought to be achieved by the Act and also having regard to the larger number of growers of agricultural produce, has given a larger representation to them on the market committee than the traders and given a chance to the growers alone to become Chairman and Vice-Chairman of a market committee. That legislation cannot be struck down as discriminatory.

       The Division Bench of the Madras High Court has an occasion to consider a similar provision in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (the Act XXVII of 1987). The Madras High Court took the similar view holding that it is ultimately for the Legislature to decide and restrict as to who can contest or who can be elected as a Chairman of the market committee.

       Section 32-A and 32-B (as amended in 1987)-Constitution of India, Article 14-Maharashtra Produce Marketing (Regulation) Rules, 1969, Rule 9 4-A-Market Committee-Inspection of-Who is empowered for?

       Held; a person who has been given the power for entry, inspection, seizure etc. is an officer not below the rank of Assistant Secretary of the market committee.

       A reading of the provision would show that such power can be exercised only in cases where the amount due to the market committee is less than rupees five hundred. That apart before such writ off, a duty is cast upon the market committee to obtain a sanction from the Director. The petitioners will not be justified in assuming that the market committee (which consists of 18 members and 20 members depending upon the market committees) as well as the Director would act without proper care and caution and in an arbitrary manner. If the market committee is required to waste its energy and resources initiating the proceedings etc., the principal object of forming the market committee viz., to help the growers would be lost. That apart, as already pointed out such power is limited only to cases not exceeding Rs. 500/-. There is no substance in the submission of the petitioners and this Court reject the same devoid of merits. Further more, Court finds that under Section 52-B of the Act, right of appeal is given to the aggrieved person.

       MAHARASHTRA PRODUCE MARKETING (REGULATION) RULES, 1967

       Rule 94-A-Market Committee-Inspection of-Who is empowered for?

       Held; a person who has been given the power for entry, inspection, seizure, etc. in an officer not below the rank of Assistant Secretary of the Market Committee.

       A reading of the provision would show that such power can be exercised only in cases where the amounr due to the Market Committee is less than rupees five hundred. That apart before such writ off, a duly is cast upon the Market Committee to obtain a sanction from the Director. The petitioners will not be justified in assuming that the Market Committee (which consists of 18 members and 20 members depending upon the Market Committees) as well as the Director would act without proper care and caution and in an arbitrary manner. If the Market Committee is required to waste its energy and resources initiating the proceedings etc., the principal object of forming the Market Committee viz., to help the growers would be lost. That apart, as already pointed out such power is limited only to cases not exceeding Rs. 500/-. There is no substance in the submission of the petitioners and Court rejects the same devoid of merits. Furthermore, Court finds that under Section 52-B of the Act, right of appeal is given to the aggrieved person.