Jaipur
Aloo Aaratiya Sangh & Ors Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors [2006] Insc 586 (13 September 2006)
S.B.
Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari
[Arising
out of SLP (Civil) No.14024-14026 of 2005] WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4104 OF 2006 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.14168-14170 of
2005] S.B. SINHA, J:
Leave
granted.
The
High Court of Rajasthan initiated a suo motu proceeding which was in the nature
of a public interest litigation.
In the
said proceeding it directed the State of Rajasthan and various authorities including Jaipur Municipal Corporation, Jaipur
Development Authority, Rajasthan Housing Board to explain as to why:
-
"filth and
squalor is not being removed,
-
trucks are being
allowed to be parked on road sides,
-
cattle and
animals are allowed to roam freely on city roads,
-
city roads are
dug at several places and this state of affairs is continuing for a long period
of time, and
-
hoardings are
being permitted which are hazard to the traffic."
Maladies
infesting in certain areas of the Jaipur City, amongst others being, digging,
cleaning of the city, shopkeepers, stray cattle, vehicles, hoarding, minding
electricity, water, hospitals, etc. were brought to the notice of the High
Court.
Several
orders were passed by it from time to time in respect of traffic congestion in
the city. In its order dated 14.8.2003, the High Court directed:
"One
finds heavy vehicles parked on both sides of the roads. No truck or heavy vehicle,
shall be allowed to be parked on the city roads. The Transport Department and
the Police Department shall remove the trucks and the heavy vehicles, which are
parked on the roads.
The
Trucks shall not be allowed to enter or ply in the city of Jaipur from 6 am to 10.30
pm. The trucks shall
be permitted inside the city for loading and unloading of the goods only from 10.30 pm to 6 am. However,
it will be open to the transporters to book the orders during the day-time but
the entry of the heavy vehicles shall be regulated only in accordance with the
aforesaid directions." A complete ban was issued in regard to the entry of
trucks in the town of Jaipur from 6 a.m. to 10.30
p.m. The same affected
carriage of vegetables and fruits to the town of Jaipur. In relation to the said order Appellants herein intended
to intervene. An application in that behalf was filed by them in the matter. A
monitoring committee was formed by the High Court presumably to oversee
implementation of its orders. Appellants also filed an application before the
Monitoring Committee, details whereof are not necessary to be noticed by us herein.
The Monitoring Committee which was appointed by the High Court submitted a
report on 2.1.2004 drawing the attention of the High Court to various
difficulties faced in the matter of traffic management in the city stating:
"However,
we feel it essential to recommend that the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court may
kindly pass appropriate orders for
-
shifting the Phal-Sabzi
Mandi from Lal Kothi to Village Sukia-Muhana (near Sanganer) at the earliest
and, if possible within 2 (two months) and
-
completion of
the outer ring road (outside the entire Jaipur City) joining 200 ft. Express Highway/
Bye-pass (which connects Ajmer
Road to Delhi Road within 2(two) years by starting the
work thereof very soon or at the most within 2 (two months." The High
Court directed the State Government to furnish various informations specified
by it by way of an affidavit.
The
State of Rajasthan, the Monitoring Committee and Appellants Associations agreed
in principle that the trucks can be allowed to exit from Lal Kothi Sabzi Mandi
to Gopalpura Bye-pass between 11.00 a.m. to 12.30 p.m. subject to the condition
that they would not ply on any route other than the specified ones and the
trucks would carry the exist passes issued by the competent authorities of Mandi
Samiti.
A
notice was issued to Shri Radhey Shyam Pathak, President, Jaipur Phal Sabzi and
Aaloo Aadtiya Maha Sangh as to why proceedings for contempt of court shall not
be initiated against him. On 27.8.2004, he was present in the court. He
tendered apology. The High Court accepted the apology tendered by the alleged
contemnor and discharged the rule. While doing so, it was directed:
"We
have been told that the State Government has invested lot of money for
establishing a Mandi at Mohana. It appears that there are certain difficulties
which need to be ironed out. The State Government shall take effective steps
for ironing out the difficulties and making it feasible for the Mandi to be
shifted to Mohana within a period of eight months." Appellants are, thus,
before us.
The
matter was heard by this Court at some length on 11.08.2006.
The
following order was passed:
"We
have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. The core issue
appears to be the shifting of wholesale fruit and vegetable market from the
existing market yard situated at Lal Kothi to Village Mohana. From the records,
it does not appear that the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Board has
issued any notification in terms of Section 3 or any other provisions of the
Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961.
It is
accepted that the wholesale dealers may be asked to shift their business to a
new market yard which is declared as such. Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, Addl. Advocate
General stated that keeping in view the issue raised by the petitioner, an
affidavit shall be filed before us within two weeks, annexing therewith all the
requisite notifications.
Let
such affidavit be filed stating other relevant facts, apart from those stated
in I.A. 14 of 2006.
Reply
to the said affidavit, if any, be filed within one week thereafter." Mr. Aruneshwar
Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan at the outset pointed out that the
notifications had been issued by the State under various provisions of the
Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. A notification under Section
5(2) of the said Act was also issued on 6th September, 1983. Our attention was further drawn to
a notification which the Government of Rajasthan proposes to issue, relevant
portion whereof reads as under:
"The
Government of Rajasthan established the Agriculture Produce Market Committee
(Fruit & Vegetable), Jaipur vide Notification No. F.10 (68) Agri-5/ 65
Dated: 6 July, 1966 which was published in Rajasthan
Gazette Dated: 14 July,
1966. Now, since the
Agriculture Produce Market Committee (Fruit & Vegetable), Jaipur has
established New Market Complex Sukhiyan, Muhana Road (Terminal Market) as the
Principal Market Yard, therefore, as per the provisions under sub-section (2)
of Section 5 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Act, 1961, State
Government while denotifying the earlier declared Lal Kothi Principal Market
Yard, hereby declares the New Market Complex Sukhiyan, Muhana Road (Terminal
Market) as the Principal Market Yard for the business of Fruit and Vegetable,
in place of Lal Kothi Principal Market Yard, which shall be bounded as under
Again, in exercise of powers conferred uner Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the
aforesaid Act, the Government of Rajasthan hereby notifies that from the
boundaries of the said Principal Market Yard up to the present boundaries of Jaipur
Municipal Corporation, any local officer, even if he is competent/ authorized
under any law or any other person, from the date of publication of this
Notification or thereafter, shall not grant permission either for
establishment/ to continue any place for the sale- purchase of any of the
agricultural produce notified for the said Mandi Area.
The
Government of Rajasthan further declares that under Sub-section (3) of Section
4 of the above mentioned area from the boundaries of the said Principal Market
yard to the boundaries of Jaipur Municipal Corporation shall be (Market
Property) Principal Market Area, as has been defined in Part 10 of Sub-section
(1) of Section 2 of the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Marketing Act,
1961." The learned counsel submitted that in view of the fact that the
State is required to comply with the statutory provisions of the Act, it should
be permitted to issue the proposed notification.
Dr.
Rajeev Dhawan, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel and Mr. A. Mariaputham,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of Appellants, however, would urge that the
proposed notification does not fulfill the statutory requirements laid down
under the said Act. The learned counsel argued that for issuance of such a
notification due application of mind on the part of the authorities of the
State was imperative and not on the premise that the High Court had passed an
order in that behalf. It was pointed out that the proposed market-yard at Mohana
was to be an additional principal market- yard, i.e., an additional market yard
to the principal market-yard existing at Lal Kothi and not a substitute
thereof.
Although
we have been taken through the various provisions of the said Act and the
notifications issued thereunder, we are of the view that this Court should not
express its opinion thereupon one way or the other at this stage.
The
public interest involved in the matter pending before the High Court is
apparent. The High Court intended to deal with some of the maladies which are existing
in the town of Jaipur.
Although
the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India was entitled to pass appropriate orders in the said
proceedings in public interest but where the requirements of law are to be
complied with, the court ordinarily should not dispense therewith. The Act is a
regulatory one. While regulating the trade in agricultural produces, the State
can issue notification as a result whereof the trade by the dealers in
vegetables or fruits may have to be carried within the premises notified therefor.
The Act contemplates steps to be taken at various stages. When such a step is
taken indisputably the validity of the action of the State will have to be
judged keeping in view the nature of restraint and other relevant factors
including the public interest involved.
In Jan
Mohammad Noor Mohammad Begban v. State of Gujarat and Another [1966] 1 SCR 505, this Court opined:
"Reasonable
restrictions on the right of a citizen to carry on trade retail as well as
wholesale may be placed by legislation. The test of the validity of the
restrictions lies in the nature of the restrictions and not in the nature of
trade. If regulation of trade in agricultural produce by the declaration of
market area and imposition of restrictions may be regarded as reasonable when
operating on the wholesale trade, it would be difficult to hold that the
identical restrictions when operating on retail trade may be deemed
unreasonable. We do not think that the observations made by this Court in
Mohammad Hussain case justify the argument urged by the petitioner. Challenge
to the validity of Sections 5 and 6 must therefore fail." Having regard to
the fact that the State was required to take certain steps under the Act, we
are of the opinion that it should be permitted to carry out its statutory
functions.
We,
therefore, permit the State to issue appropriate notification (s) as is/ are
necessary for enforcement of its policy/ scheme in accordance with law.
We are
not oblivious of the fact that the State at one point of time intended to
declare the specified area at village Mohana as a terminal point.
The
State has sought to explain the same stating:
"It
is respectfully submitted that Terminal Market is only the name of the main Mandi
Yard, Mohana.
The
Scheme is divided in three phases, involving total area of 223 hectares. In
first phase mandi yard has been develoed in total area of 78 hectares as
against only 2.78 hectares at Lal Kothi. Out of 78 hectares 63 hectares have
been dedicated to the shops and traders and 15 hectares have been utilized for
common facilities i.e. office etc. It is respectfully submitted that the Mandi
Yard at Mohana is situated at 17 Kms. from the zero mile, Jaipur. It is
respectfully submitted that an amount of Rs. 25 crores has been spent on the
development of infrastructural facilities at Mandi Yard Mohana and Rs. 15 crores
has been spent for acquisition of land for the establishment of Mandi Yard at Mohana,
Jaipur. The facilities of street light, electricity, lighting, block
connection, internal roads, auction complexes, boundaries, farmers facilitation
center, post office building, two bank buildings, Sulabh complex, labour sheds,
development of truck stand, drinking water facility, sewage system, drinking
water system, internal road (II phase), park fountain and plantation, signboard
at National Highway etc.
have
been developed" Our attention was further drawn to the fact that the
members of Appellants Associations also agreed to shift their business to the
shops allotted by the Market Committee in Block D.
We
need not go into the said question as this stage.
We, as
at present advised, permit the State of Rajasthan to issue notifications leaving the question of the validity thereof, if
raised by Appellants or others, by the appropriate Bench of the High Court.
We
would, however, like to make an unusual request. The State appears to have
spent crores of rupees in developing the specified place at the proposed site
of the market-yard/ terminal point at village Mohana.
Whether
it was meant to be a terminal point or principal market-yard is one question
but another is as to how soon the shops constructed therein and other utilities
provided for, should be put to use.
While
giving opportunity to the State to take requisite steps for implementation of
the provisions of the said Act, in the event, the legality or validity of the
said notifications is challenged before the High Court, the same may be
disposed of by the High Court as quickly as possible. This order shall,
however, not mean that the High Court in the existing public interest
litigations would not be entitled to pass appropriate order (s) in regard to
vehicular traffic and/ or other questions pending before it.
The
appeals are allowed to the extent mentioned hereinbefore. In the facts and
circumstances of this case, there shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
