Honble Dr. LAKSHMANAN, CJ.–This appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge (G.L. Gupta, J.) dated 4.4.2000 dismissing the writ petition on the ground that amendment in the rules does not frustrate the object of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1961 (hereinafter, to be referred as `the Act of 1961).

(2). The writ petition was filed by the appellant which is a registered body, praying as under:-

(i) By issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction declare the notification dated 31.07.1998 as ultravires and completely against the purpose,

(ii) by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, direct the respondent that no such increase should be made by the State Government; and

(iii) by issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction it may also be ordered that the State Government should recover the excess amount charged by the brokers after 31.7.98.

(3). By notification dated, 31.7.88, the State Government has increased the rate of commission to A-class brokers from 4% to 6%. The increase in the rate of commission from 4% to 6% is under challenge in the writ petition on the following grounds:

(a) That there is no justification behind this increase and that the amount will go to the middle man.

(b). The action of the Government in increasing the commission is clearly against the spirit of the Agricultural Produce Market Act and by this increase, the purpose of the Act and the establishment of the markets has been frustrated.

(c) The purpose of the Act was to eliminate the rate of middle man but by this increase, the role has been made very lucrative instead.

(d) The object of the Act was to benefit the producer as well as the consumer, but by this notification the Government has completely ignored the purpose and has benefited the middle man.

(e) There is no rationale behind the increase and there was no necessity for the increase.

Alongwith the writ petition certain Annexures were filed.

(4). Reply was filed on behalf of the State of Rajasthan. According to the State, the Government has taken a policy decision for increasing rate of commission from 4% to 6% and the notification has been issued after considering all the relevant factors and that the State has always a right to change its policy from time to time under the changing circumstances; and that the same cannot be questioned in a court of law unless the said policy is arbitrary or violative of law.

(5). G.L. Gupta, J. by his order dated 4.4.2000 dismissed the writ petition on consideration of the entire materials placed before him. The learned Judge was considering the only question raised by the appellant/petitioner as to whether amendment in the rules frustrates the object of the Act of 1961 and after reproducing the preamble of the Act has held as follows:-

``The obvious purpose of the Act is to establish markets for agricultural produce for the State and also to regulate the buying and selling of the agricultural produce. The commission is given to the brokers for the help they render in the sale and purchase of the agricultural produce. Since the commission payable to `A Class broker was already payable, may be at 4 per cent which has now been increased at 6 per cent, it can not be said that the amendment has frustrated the objectives of the Act.

The Change in the rate of commission of the brokers is the policy matter for the consideration of the State Government. The State Government has taken decision of increasing the brokers commission after having the information from the other States of the country and also the other relevant factors. Since there was long standing demand of the brokers, the matter has been considered by the State Government and it has been thought proper to increase the commission. It may be that the increase is likely to benefit around Rs. 90, 000/-p.m. to the brokers working in the market but that can not be a ground to strike down the provision of increasing the rate of commission. This Court can be just

Click Here to Read the rest of this document