JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra, C.J. - On March 15, 1977, the State Government issued a notification declaring its intention to regulate the sale and purchase of agricultural produce mentioned in Sch. 'B in the Market Areas mentioned in Sch. A, in partial modification of earlier notifications mentioned in Column 4 of Sch. 'A. It invited objections in respect of the proposed declaration. Having considered the objections and suggestions received by it, the State Government, on April 11, 1978, issued a notification under Section 8 (1) (a) of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964, declaring that with effect from May 1, 1978, agricultural produce mentioned in Schedule B shall be included in the list of specified agricultural produce of Market Areas mentioned in Sch. A. Sch. A covered 250 Market Areas in various districts of this State. Sch. B referred to nearly 100 different commodities.

2. The petitioners in the large group of writ petitions have challenged the validity of the aforesaid notification.

2-A. The validity of the notification has been questioned on the following grounds:

(1) The notification is ultra vires Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Act. In the alternative, Sections 5, 6 and 8 of the Act are violative of Arts. 14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.

(2) The notification violates the guarantee under Art. 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution.

(3) The notification violates Art, 301 of the Constitution.

(4) The notification was invalid, as there was no application of mind to the relevant and material factors.

(5) The licence fee and the market fee leviable under the Act is ultra vires; it is, in substance, a tax.

(6) Commodities like wood, bamboo, hides and skins, dairy products, ghee, zeera, tobacco, tendu leaves, Rab, Bhusa, rice, etc. are not covered by the Act, and 60 the notification in relation thereto is ultra vires.

3. Most of these points have been, during the course of the years, urged before this Court in earlier rounds of writ petitions and have been rejected.

4. In relation to the first point, that the notification is ultra vires Sections 5, 6 and 8, learned counsel submitted that the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam was enacted to protect the producer of agricultural produce in relation to commercial crops cultivated and produced by him. This object and purpose of the Act implies that the State Government is confined to notifying only such commercial crops as are cultivated or produced in the Market Area to be liable to regulation in that particular Market Area. Crops which are either not commercial crops or are not produced in the Market Area cannot be notified for that Market Area.

5. In support, reference was made to the Statement of Objects and Reasons as well as to several provisions of the Act. It was stressed that the Act was intended to apply to the producer who sells. It was inapplicable to middle-men, commission agents, importers of agricultural produce from outside the State or from other Market Areas.

6. The express provisions of the Act are not restricted to either commercial crops or to crops grown in the particular Market Area. They also contemplate regulation of trade between trader and trader. Section 17 (iii) (b) provides for levy of market fee. Cl. (3) thereof says that the market fee shall he payable if the produce is purchased by a trader from another trader, the trader selling the produce may realise it from the purchaser and shall be liable to pay the market fee to the Committee. This is an express provision regulating transactions between trader and trader no matter he be a wholesaler, commission agent, importer or any other kind of trader.

7. In State of West Bengal v. Union of India AIR 1963 SC 1241 it was held that the Statement of Objects and Reasons can be used for the limited purpose of understanding the background and the antecedents of the state of affairs leading up to the legislation. It cannot be used to determine the true meaning and effect of the substantive provisions of the stat