AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.—By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for grant of following reliefs and issuance of writ of certiorari or any other
suitable writ or direction.
a) The petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the respondent has no jurisdiction to regulate the timber trade being carried out by the petitioner
in Chickmagalur Town under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Committee Act, 1966;
b) The petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the notice bearing No. 2329/92-93 dated 28/29.1.1993 issued by the respondent and annexed as
Annexure-''C'' as well as for the quashing of all further proceedings including the prosecution initiated by the respondent pursuant to the Complaint
dated 5.3.1993 (Annexure-''E'' to the Writ Petition). The Annexure-''E'' is the copy of the complaint case relating to C.C.No.797/93 on the file of
the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chikmagalur;
c) The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondent directing the respondents to grant or supply the copies of the Notifications
and other documents sought for by the petitioner in the application dated 2.9.1993 vide Annexure-''F''.
The petitioner''s case is that the petitioner has been carrying on the trade and marketing in Timber in the Town of Chickmagalur in the name and
style of M/s. GEO ENTERPRISES. Petitioner''s further case is that, in the year 1991, petitioner was forced to obtain the licence even though
according to the petitioner, petitioner was not liable or bound to take licence under the Act. The petitioner''s case is that the petitioner asked the
respondent to explain as to what jurisdiction it has got to regulate the timber trade in Chickmagalur and under which Act or taw it can ask the
petitioner to seek renewal of the licence. According to the petitioner as the respondent did not give any reply, the petitioner did not think it fit to get
the licence renewed for the year 1992-93 and thereafter. According to the petitioner, respondent has no right to regulate the Timber trade for
absence of relevant Notification under the Act and their failure to give the petitioner the facility for undertaking the trade. Petitioner''s further case is
that the petitioner received notice bearing No. 2667:92-93 dated 13.1.1993 (Annexure-''A'') from the respondent calling the petitioner to produce
the books of accounts and to pay the market fee of Rs. 27,188/- and penalty of Rs. 8,157/ - for the period 1989-90, 1990-91 and 1991-92.
Petitioner''s case is that she again wrote a letter to the respondent asking him to furnish the particulars asked for relating to the authority of the
respondent to regulate the trade. Petitioner has annexed a copy of the letter dated 21.1.1993 as Annexure-''B'' to the Writ Petition. Petitioner''s
further case is that notice bearing No. 2328:92-93 dated 28/29.1.1993 reiterating the same facts mentioned in the earlier notice dated 13.1.1993
(Annexure-''A'') was issued by the respondent. Petitioner has annexed the copy thereof as Annexure-''C''. According to the petitioner''s case,
petitioner again sent a reminder on 15.2.1993 seeking clarification from the respondent about their authority in regulating the marketing and trade in
Timber. According to the petitioner''s case, thereafter respondent filed a Complaint before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chickmagalur,
against the petitioner for the violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (Regulation) Act, 1966 and
the Magistrate took the cognizance of the complaint and registered the case as C.C.No. 797/1993 which is now pending before the Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Chickmagalur. The copy of that complaint is annexed as Annexure-""E'' to the Writ Petition. Petitioner''s case is that the
petitioner filed in application on 2.9.1993 before the respondent asking for certified copies of the certain documents namely, upto date amended
by-laws framed governing the A.P.M.C., Kadur, Notification issued by the Government empowering A.P.M.C. Kadur to have the jurisdiction
over Chickmagalur Area and the list of commodities/produces declared by the State as Agricultural produce. The petitioner''s case is that she did
not receive any reply and so she has got issued a legal notice to the respondent on 21.9.1993 copy of which the petitioner has annexed as
Annexure-''G'' to the Writ Petition. In view of enunciation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner, the petitioner has preferred this Writ
Petition challenging the complaint and the prosecution and has sought for reliefs claimed in the petition. Petitioner''s further case as per allegations in
paragraph No. 11 in the Writ Petition is that the Government has not issued any notification under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act regulating Timber
trade in Chickmagalur Town. Petitioner has given basis for such allegation to be that inspite of repeated request made by the petitioner, the
respondent did not furnish the copies of the notifications, if any, issued by the Government u/s 3, 4 or 6 and her case is that in the absence of
publication of notifications u/s 3, 4 or 6 particularly with reference to the Timber, the respondent has no right to force the petitioner to comply with
the provisions of the Act. Petitioner''s case is that the respondent is not in a position to provide basic facilities for the marketing of the agricultural
goods nor have provided any. The petitioner''s case is that the only godown constructed in the market yard has been leased out to the Karnataka
Warehousing Corporation. Petitioner further alleges that except the office building to accommodate the local stock and bare platforms, no other
infrastructure is available in the market yard to undertake marketing of notified agricultural products as contemplated under the Act. The petitioner
has further alleged that there is no road worth the name in order to enter the market yard. As a result of which no truck can enter the market yard.
The petitioner''s further case is that no agriculturist is making use of the market yard and in the absence of any agriculturist making use of the
market yard and on account of lack of barest minimum facilities, it is not possible for the petitioner or any trader to conduct the business in the
market yard. The petitioner has admitted that she has been conducting all her trading activities from outside the market yard and the petitioner''s
case is that the petitioner is not liable to take licence u/s 8(1)(b) of the Act.
That a statement of objections has been filed on behalf of the Agricultural Market Committee, Chickmagalur - Respondent No. 2. In addition to
the statement of objections, the respondents also have filed a photostat copy of the Gazette Notification issued by the Government u/s 5 of the
Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, read with Section 4 thereof declaring timber as the notified agricultural produce. This
Notification is dated 23.2.1994. That during the pendency of Writ Petition, Agricultural Produce Market Committee was bifurcated into
Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Kadur and Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Chickmagalur, The petitioner''s place of business
having fallen with the Market area of Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Chickmagalur, the Agricultural Produce Market Committee,
Chickmagalur applied for its being impleaded as a respondent and was impleaded as respondent No. 2. The case of the respondent No. 2 is that
earlier to bifurcation of agricultural market area, there existed the market area by name of Market Area, Kadur and the Market Committee had
also been appointed. The Learned Counsel pointed out that when by notification dated 26.6.1978 timber was declared as one of the notified
agricultural produce, along with other commodities, the Market Area, Kadur, with the market yard and sub-market yard did exist. The Learned
Counsel for the Market Committee on being called upon, produced the copies of the Gazette Notifications dated 26.6.1978, published in gazette
dated 26.7.1978. The Learned Counsel for the Market Committee had been directed to keep the material documents available for the perusal of
the Court. A perusal of the notification dated 26.6.1978 per se shows that under Mysore Agricultural Produce Market Act 1939, the Government
of Mysore had declared Kadur Town Municipality limits to be the market area for certain agricultural produces mentioned such as Groundnut,
Coconut, Oil seeds, Jaggery, Ragi, Cotton, Pulses, Arecanuts, Chillies, Coriander, Garlic etc. Thereafter, other notifications were also issued
under that Act declaring that the same Market shall continue with respect to some additional produces as well in addition to the agricultural
produces already specified in earlier notifications and finally by this notification dated 26.6.1978 exercising powers u/s 5 read with Section 4 of the
Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, and it was provided that marketing in potatoes, oranges and timber hitherto not
regulated shall be regulated in addition to the agricultural produces already regulated in the market of the said market area. It has also been brought
to my notice that on the enforcement of the Mysore Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act which is now known as Karnataka
Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee (Regulation) Act, 1966, the Chief Marketing Officer issued a notification on 9.2.1970 and thereby
declared that the entire area within the municipal limits of the Chickmagalur Town shall be sub-market for market area of Agricultural Produce
Market Committee, Kadur and by this notification the place which has been specified in this notification was also declared to be the sub-market
yard as well. That market yard has been described by boundaries specifically given therein. This notification had been issued under Sub-section 2-
A of Section 6 of the then Mysore Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 which was enforced with effect from 1.5.1968 and this
was later called as the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulations) Act.
The Learned Counsel further pointed out that in view of Section 154(2)(a), the market that had been established vide notification of the year
1957 was deemed to have been established as the market area and the declaration of the sub-market yard and sub-market, with reference to the
market area that had been established under Act of 1939, had been established u/s 6(2)(A). The respondents'' case is that the existing market yard
was earlier declared as Sub-Market Yard, Kadur and it contained all necessary infrastructure for the marketing in the notified agricultural produces
and after bifurcation of the market area, the said sub-market and sub-market yard became the market and market yard for A.P.M.C.
Chickmagalur with all infrastructure as existing earlier. In the counter affidavit it has been further stated that Market Committee had already
provided auction, place, office building, water supply, roads, drainage, electricity and facility of godowns. It has further been stated that no market
functionary had raised any objection as regards these facilities provided therein except the petitioner. The case of the respondent is that the
petitioner failed to produce the necessary accounts as regards the transactions as well as to pay market fee and as respondents have to realise the
same they demanded the petitioner to furnish the accounts.
I have heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri G.K.V. Murthy assisted by Sri Arvind Kamath and Sri B.G. Sridharan, Learned
Counsel for the respondents.
The Learned Counsel for the petitioner first tried to argue that there has been no market or market yard had been declared at all either with
respect to market Area, Kadur, nor there was any sub-market or sub-market yard, and as they did not exist, so Section 8 did not come into
operation. When the Learned Counsel was confronted with reference to his contention with reference to the entire market area of Kadur, that no
market has been established, not is there any market yard or sub-market yard has been established and was called upon to show or point out
where has the petitioner made such an assertion in the Writ Petition. The Learned Counsel invited my attention to the paragraph 11 of the Writ
Petition. A perusal of the paragraph 11 does not indicate that any such plea has been taken with such wide scope to the effect that no market or
market yard was at all established at any time u/s 6 or 7 of the Act. In paragraph 11 of the Writ Petition it has been stated as under:-
The petitioner further submits that the Government has not issued any notification under Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the Act regulating timber trade in
Chickmagalur Town.
Rest of the contents of paragraph 11 only indicates the basis on which such an averment has been made and basis for such an averment as stated
to be is that the respondent did not furnish the copy of the notification issued by the Government and therefore on that basis the petitioner claimed
that respondent had no right to compel the petitioner to comply with the provisions of the Act. A reading of paragraph 11 indicates that the
petitioner''s case is confined with reference to issuance or non-issuance of notifications u/s 3, 4 or 6 only with reference to the trade of timber only
and not with reference to entire Town or Market Area.
The Learned Counsel for the respondents has been correct in submitting before me that notification dated 26.6.1978 is the notification u/s 5 of
the Act making alterations in the list of commodities or agricultural produces to be regulated. A perusal of the list indicate that it was u/s 5 read with
Section 4 and in that it has been provided that the Government has directed transaction of sale and purchase or marketing in respect of potatoes,
oranges and timber hitherto not regulated shall be regulated in addition to agricultural produces already regulated in the markets in the said market
area. The notification perse shows that there had been market yard already established in Kadur and it has been mentioned in the earlier part of the
notification as well and in that market marketing in Potatoes, Oranges and Timber was to be regulated in addition to the marketing of agricultural
produces which have already been regulated. u/s 5 of the Act what is provided is that the State Government can exclude or include any area as
well as it has been given power that it may declare that the regulation of marketing in any agricultural produce in the market area hitherto not
regulated shall be regulated in such market area. Now use of expression ""such market area"" clearly reveals that there is market area existing and
transactions with respect to additional goods shall be regulated in the market area under the Act. When this notification u/s 5 had been published
amending the earlier notifications and adding something or providing some new agricultural produces as regulated under the Act, it is not always
necessary that a new market or new market yard should be established for it. This is further fortified from the perusal of the Sub-section 4 of
Section 6 of the Act. Sub-section 4 of Section 6 reads as under: -
For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that after the alteration of a market area or of the items of regulated agricultural produce, if any,
u/s 5, it shall not be necessary for the Director of Agricultural Marketing to make any declaration under this section unless he is of the opinion that
it is necessary to declare any area other than the existing market, sub-market, market yard, market sub-yard or sub-market yard as market, sub-
market , market yard, market sub-yard or sub-market yard, as the case may be.
A reading of the Section clearly indicates that if a notification is issued u/s 5 adding or providing that some more agricultural produce not hitherto
regulated shall be regulated it is not necessary for the Director of the Agricultural Marketing to make a declaration to declare any other area to be
the market, sub Market or Market yard in the market area. But no doubt, it is within his powers that he can do so if the circumstances require it to
be done looking to the volume of the business in the commodity. But it is clarified that he is Director concerned is not bound in each of the case of
declaring the notified agricultural produce to declare a separate market, sub-market or the market yard, separate sub-market yard i.e. the one
distinct from the one existing. When I say this I find support from the decisions of this Court VASAVI TRADERS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
1982(2) KarLJ 357 : ILR 1982 KAR 961 as well as from the decision of this Court in Mohan Vs. State of Karnataka, and the decision of this
Court in BASTY VENKATESH SHANTAPPA SHANGHOGNE v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., WP. No. 26270 to 284 of
1990 dt. 7.7.1996 vide para 20 to 22 of the judgment.
u/s 6(2A), the entire area within the municipal limits of the Chickmagalur Town had been declared to be the sub-market for the market area of
the A.P.M.C., Kadur, and along with it the sub-market yard had also been declared. It is also provided by Section 7 that where a notification is
issued u/s 6(2A), the market shall be deemed to be established u/s 7 from the date of issuance of notification u/s 6(2A) of the Act. In this view of
the matter, the market area, sub-market, market yard, sub-market yard with reference to the Chickmagalur had already been declared and
established by the publication of notification. In this view of the matter, the market or sub-market did exist on the date of notification dated
26.6.1978 had been issued, at Chickmagalur and there was also a market. As the sub-market and market yard existed in the year 1978 itself, it
was not necessary for the Government or the Deputy Director to issue any fresh notification u/s 6 or 7 to declare any other place or place other
than this place to be the market or sub-market for Timber, Oranges and Potatoes which are referred to in notification dated 26.6.1978. The
market and market yard will be deemed to have established on 9.2.1970, once bifurcation of the market has taken place and the Chickmagalur
market area has been declared by issuance of notification u/s 145(1) and 2(D) of the Act. This being the position, the provision law u/s 8 of the
Act did came into operation and as such restrictions provided thereunder did came into effect and so no person had a right to carry on trade or
marketing without obtaining licence from the Market Committee nor could any person without taking the licence to carry any business, in any place
in the market area other than the market yard or sub-market yard in the Chickmagalur, in any of the notified agricultural produces. As Timber had
been notified as agricultural produce in the year 1978, so in respect of Timber, the marketing could not be done without taking licence after June,
1978 and restriction contained u/s 8 thereafter did come into operation.
8(a). The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has made an application to the effect that a Commissioner be appointed to
ascertain about the facilities that had been provided in the market area, market and market yard. He submitted that the facilities provided are not
sufficient and he stated that it is necessary because the Market Committee denied these allegations. The Marketing Committee has stated in the
counter affidavit vide paragraph 5 thereof and indicated that auction platforms, water supply, roads, office building, drainage, electricity and other
facilities of godown had been provided. !t has also been stated by the Marketing Committee that no market functionary is objecting as regards to
the facilities nor has challenged the authority of the Marketing Committee to collect market fee. It is only the petitioner who is challenging the
authority of the Marketing Committee. That Section 8 did come into operation in the market area with reference to the market yard and sub-
market yard with effect from the date of publication of the notification dated 9.2.1970. What were all the facilities provided when the notification
was issued need not be gone into at this stage. Much water has flown from that time. Therefore as the market and market yard having already been
established and Section 8 has already come into operation and The Timber had been notified as on agricultural produce in June 1978, it also
became the subject to the regulations under the law as contained u/s 8 of the Act automatically. So it cannot be said at this stage that the facilities
provided are not sufficient. No useful purpose will be served by issuing any commission. It is not the petitioner''s case that at the time of notification
was issued, the facilities had not been provided at all except bare issuance of notifications. I do not find it to be just and proper to issue any
Commission to estimate if and to what extent facilities had been provided at this stage under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In such circumstances, in my opinion, it would be proper for the petitioner to obtain the licence and pay market fee. If there are or have been
any deficiencies, the petitioner should have approached the Market Committee and authorities should have considered his case. Petitioner should
have taken licence or she should have got the licence renewed and she should have paid the market fee. The petitioner has not approached the
Market Committee with reference to the difficulties or lack of facilities. Instead she started challenging the authority of the Market Committee to
regulate marketing in the notified agricultural produce-Timber. The fault goes with the petitioner and she has to bear the consequences.
In my opinion, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above as well as law applicable, the Market Committee has jurisdiction to call
upon the petitioner to take licence and pay the market fee and to furnish correct and upto date Account Books etc., If there is any breach of law,
law has to take its own course and nobody can check or stop it. That if there are some deficiencies in facilities and services rendered by Market
Committee, it is petitioner''s duty to approach the authorities under the Act including Market Committee with specific case of deficiency to be
removed and authorities are expected to do their best in this regard.
Thus considered, in my opinion, this petition has got no force or merits. It is devoid of merits and subject to the above observations, it is hereby
dismissed with costs.