SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
MARKANDEY KATJU,CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, , ,
MD.MURTAZA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ASSAM . – Respondent
C.A. No.-007517-007517 / 2011 29-08-2011



Advocates:
RAJIV MEHTACORPORATE LAW GROUP

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLAE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7517__2011

[Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos. 15141 of 2009]

Md. Murtaza and others

..

Appellants

-vs-

State of Assam and others

..

Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7518_2011

[Arising out of SLP(Civil) Nos. 27497 of 2009]

Shaukat Ali and others

..

Appellants

-vs-

State of Assam and others

..

Respondents

O R D E R

1.

Leave granted.

2.

These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment and

order dated 28.4.2008 passed by the Gauhati High Court in Writ Petition

(Civil) No. 8081 of 2005.

1

3.

The appellants are wholesale vegetable and fruit vendors and were

engaged in selling vegetables and fruits at Machkhowa market, Gauhati in

the State of Assam since 1995. However, they had to vacate their respective

possession of the premises in pursuance to the orders of the Gauhati High

Court. Machkhowa market is situated close to the railway station and is

inside the city and the land thereon has been allotted to the Department of

Handloom and Textiles, Government of Assam for the purpose of

construction of an administrative building. For this purpose it was proposed

to remove the appellants and other wholesale vendors from the Machkhowa

market, and instead a new market has been constructed at Ganeshguri. It

was submitted by the appellants and others that there is not enough space in

the Ganeshguri municipal market for the appellants and others. We are not

referring to the various orders issued by the Gauhati High Court from time to

time.

4.

In one of the counter affidavits filed before us it has been stated that

all parts of the city of Gauhati, including Machkhowa is very congested and

hence the appellants and other wholesellers should not be allowed to do

business of wholesale fruits and vegetables inside the city limits as a large

number of heavy and medium goods vehicles have to enter the city to go to

2

that wholesale market and consequently the area becomes very congested

causing serious traffic problems and also hazard of health and hygiene and

pollution. It is stated that the government of Assam has initiated steps to

develop the fruits and vegetables wholesale market at the outskirts of

Gauhati at Garchuk near the bypass on an area of 8 bighas of land and the

foundation stone of the project market was laid by the Chief Minister on

25.2.2011. It has been further submitted that development work is taking

place at a high speed at Garchuk.

5.

We are of the opinion that the wholesale market of fruits and

vegetables for supplying of these goods to Gauhati and elsewhere should be

at the outskirts or outside the city limits of Gauhati to avoid problems of

traffic congestion, health and hygiene, pollution etc.

6.

Citizens ordinarily do not go to wholesale markets, but they go to

retail markets. Hence if the wholesale market is not situated within the city

limits it will not cause any inconvenience to the public in general. On the

other hand, if such wholesale market is situated within the city limits, there

will be everyday hazards of traffic congestion because of hundreds of

vehicles entering the city carrying goods for the wholesale markets resulting

in traffic congestion, air and noise pollution etc., apart from posing health

3

and hygiene problems. A large number of these goods will be dumped on

the roads causing huge collection of waste and garbage. The rotting goods

may spread diseases. They may also attract stray animals.

7.

Ordinarily everywhere in the world wholesale markets are situated at

the outskirts or outside the city limits. No doubt, the shifting of the shops of

the wholesellers will cause some hardships to some individuals, but it is well

settled that public interest prevails over the private interests. Thus, in

Friends Colony Development Committee vs. State of Orissa AIR 2005 SC 1

(vide para 22) this Court observed

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top