Messrs Daulatram Tikamdas v. The State of Maharashtra

challenged constitutionality of the Act of 1963 and the legality of the notifications.

The controversy raised detain a judgment Supreme Court Mohammad Hussain Gulam Mohammad and anr. v. The State of Bombay and another, AIR 1962 SC 97. petition

In Mohammad Hussain Gulam Mohammad, question before Supreme Court regarding constitutionality Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1939 (for short, ‘Act of 1939’).

The contentions raised petitioner before the Supreme Court are noticed in paragraph 1 of the judgment thus: "The provisions bye-laws unreasonable guaranteed Constitution. taking various resulting petitioners contend Act framed restrictions infringe Art. In payable licences markets impose Rules thereunder agricultural fundamental 19(1)(g) committee burden particular, market a regulated unreasonable petitioners trade. market Further various produce commodities restriction declaration establishment :8: later. State trade. market required commodities market unreasonable bye-laws resulted agricultural produce assail committee, proper contend required a market licences conferred committees. Act thereunder unconstitutional, In issued provisions bye-laws as a market has not been established as required under the law. " market committee alternative market against market market They committee, Rules sub-market compelling restriction distances, The provisions framed producers petitioners Rules provisions Act specify The Bombay petitioners committee S.5AA committee exercise Act therefore therefore direction a respondents, Act, petitioners Rules bye-laws should enforce imposing market establish Act established powers market framed declared void. particular

The Supreme Court noticed provisions Act 1939 paragraph 5 report concerning sections 4, 4A, 5, 5A 5AA thereof held that the said provisions were constitutional. The Supreme Court observed thus- "5. Act declaration establishment petitioners 5AA market market unreasonable We These scheme provisions results a contention market market a therein. behalf Ss.4, 4A, 5, 5A provide establishment declaration unconstitutional restrictions agricultural opinion The a a produce. :9: contention. This Court consider Madras a similar Commercial Act. No.XX 1959 Nadar Supp (1) v. SCR regulation Madras commercial upheld. Act 92: The respect a market markets Act) Act. 4A, 5A 5, 4, 1933, State (AIR respect provided unconstitutional. petitioners, difference Act commercial inasmuch however, between possible possible sweep. crops, restriction We petitioners Learned provisions 5AA counsel Madras Madras Act Act whereas contended It regulation Act enshrined contention. opinion constitutional purchase The commercial certain notified definition "commercial include Fort St.

Dealing with section 29 of the Act of 1939, the Supreme Court held thus- :11: The gazette, "6. Act, Government official specified submitted unregulated without whatsoever. contention guidance As retail State whether should Schedule. volume a trade. conclusion particular Schedule subject-matter We Mills Ajmer, 25). Wages appropriate respect minimum notification observed policy enactment enactment attack provides S. notification 29 to, agricultural Schedule. It include guidance within a State We fail. 29 itself opinion It provide S. criterion determining Schedule therefrom various provisions already opinion Act altogether, called provides wholesale opinion pointed out, Act Government a consider nature Co. The If produce fallen Ltd., SCR particular to, State guidance agricultural Government produce whether of, conclusion produce production Schedule. included wholesale produce connection trade, Beawar v. State 1955 1955-I In Act, 1948, Government 735: S. schedule a apparent AIR ((S) 27 employment opinion manner It purposes particular constitutional. there); (impugned effectively larger State cancel produce completely Government Schedule control itself. scheme account decide produce wholesale On a a Schedule. Edward SC Minimum either giving legislative longer :12: to, Government S. The regard desirable appropriate reference industry list. opinion specified different apparent Therefore, Legislative essential administrative accessory deemed reject Government and is therefore unconstitutional. " contention policy uncontrolled necessary powers conditions decide whether minimum a 29 particular included considerations State amend, cancel agricultural should Act Government legislative Schedule conditions State policy prevailing S.29, itself assigned enacting stripped authority subordinate anything Act. S.29 We produce accordance pursuance Act. purpose therefore Act State

The provisions Act 1963 similar provisions Act

1939. The constitutional validity Act 1939 having upheld, previsions Act 1963 reasons upheld. As a matter fact, learned counsel petitioner candid enough accepting position judgment Supreme Court Mohammad Hussain Gulam Mohammad (supra) upholding constitutionality Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1939, constitutionality Act

1963. learned counsel petitioner The :13: demonstrate illegality notifications 20th June, 1988 18th October,

1988. As already indicated above, notification 20th Act June, 1988 issued section 4(1) 1963, declared marketing agricultural produce mentioned therein regulated market Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Committee effect

1.7.1988. By subsequent notification 18th October, 1988, certain localities viz. Dana Bunder/Masjid Bunder were declared to be principal markets.

The thrust argument learned counsel petitioner fruits petitioner imported and, therefore, ‘agricultural produce’ within meaning clause (a) section 2(1) Act

1963. The argument impress us. Clause (a) section 2(1) defines agricultural produce 1963 purposes Act produce (whether processed not) agriculture, horticulture, husbandry, apiculture, pisciculture specified schedule. By stretch imagination, fruits agricultural produce defined clause (a) section 2(1). The Act 1963 animal forest :14: notifications issued thereunder distinction between agricultural produce produced processed within State outside. For applicability Act notifications issued thereunder, relevant yard. agricultural produce market market Our support Division Bench judgment matter special application Nos.1477 1972 124 1975, Popatlal Kisandas Kaga ors. v. State of Maharashtra and anr. decided on 10th August, 1978 wherein this court held thus- "It contended Act affected transactions between traders outside the market area. Supreme The market through yard, sub-market something market purchase, subject and sold in the market area under Rule 53 read with section 11. charged outside transaction fees, Court principal pointed produce market a trader market outside brought trader agricultural produce within market brought paragraph commodity Court But observed 19, outside merely market brought Supreme Court question cautioned wholesale transaction, trader, charged observing "of course, market Supreme :15: further market a trader liable circumstance case of unreasonable restriction on the right to carry on trade and business. " fee. We locally market wholesale a

We, thus, submission learned counsel petitioner fruits and dry dates dealt with by the petitioner are imported and are not agricultural produce.