Venkatarama Ayyar, J. (sitting alone.)-

The common question of law that is raised in these petitions is whether the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act (XX of 1933) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the Rules framed thereunder have become voild and unenforceable as being repugnant to the Constitution. In C.M.P. No. 13169 of 1950 the facts are that the Government of Madras in exercise of the powers conferred on them by section 2 (i-a) of the Act issued on 27th June, 1949, a notification declaring cocoanuts, copra and arecanuts as commercial crops! On 15th November, 1949, a further notification was made under section 4 of the Act declaring the district of Malabar as notified area under the Act in respect of the above commodities. In May 1950, a Market Committee was constituted under section 4-A of the Act and on 26th November, 1950 and 27th November, 1950, the Committee published certain notices marked as Exhibits A, B, B-1 and B-2 and it is the validity of these notices that is in question in this petition. Exhibit A provides that the merchants must, in order to do business in cocoanuts, copra and arecanuts, obtain licences on payment of fees as provided therein and register their names with the Market Committee and that they should execute an agreement undertaking to do business in accordance with the terms contained therein. Exhibit B is the form of the agreement to be executed by the merchants in favour of the Market Committee; clause 2 thereof provides that the licensee should ‘confine his purchases and sales to the licensed premises’. Exhibit B-1 is the application form for obtaining licences for selling and buying and Exhibit B-2, for storing and processing the commodities. The place or places where the business is to be carried on are to be specified. The petitioner is a merchant carrying on business as purchaser and seller of cocoanuts, copra and arecanuts in Calicut in the district of Malabar and his contention is that the Act and the Rules are repugnant to the Constitution and have become void and that accordingly a writ of mandamus should be issued prohibiting the respondents from enforcing them, as threatened in their notice.

The petitioners in W.P. No. 854 of 1952 are merchants carrying on business in tobacco at various places in the District of East Godavari. On 1st Novembers 1948, the Government notified the area under section 4 of the Act in respect of tobacco; and on 5th December, 1950, a further notification was made under section 4-A, establishing a Market Committee. On 8th September, 1952, the Committee issued a notice to the petitioners that they should obtain a licence under rule 48 and that in default, they would be prosecuted under the Act. The validity of this notice is challenged on grounds similar to those put forward in C.M.P. No. 13169 of 1950.

The petitioners in W.P. No. 75 of 1953 are merchants carrying on business in cotton and they are also trustees of a charity known as ‘Virudhunagar Nadar Abhivirthi Panjikadai Mahimai’ which owns a market in Virudhunagar available for use by all merchants. On 5th June, 1951, the Government issued a notification under section 4 extending the operation of the Act to the District of Ramnad with reference to cotton and groundnuts. On 18th March, 1952, a notification was issued under section 4-A of the Act appointing a Market Committee, with directions that they should establish markets in Virudhunagar, Rajapalayam and Sattur. On 9th January, 1953, the Market Committee issued a notice that the Act and the Rules had come into operation on 1st January, 1953, that persons who did business in cotton and groundnuts should take out licences as provided therein and that in default actions will be taken against them. A further notice, dated 17th January, 1953, required that licences should, on pain of prosecution, be taken on or before 15th February, 1953. The petitioners have taken out this application both as merchants and trustees of the charity aforesaid for a writ

Click Here to Read the rest of this document