Holding

The State is permitted to issue appropriate notifications under the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 for enforcement of its policy, and the High Court should not dispense with the statutory requirements.

Summary

The Rajasthan High Court, in a suo motu public interest litigation, ordered a ban on truck entry into Jaipur and directed the shift of the Phal Sabzi Mandi from Lal Kothi to Mohana within eight months to alleviate traffic congestion. The State of Rajasthan proposed a notification under the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 to declare the new market at Mohana as the principal market yard and denotify the old one. The appellants challenged the notification, arguing that the statutory requirements of the Act were not fulfilled and that the High Court should not bypass the required application of mind. The Supreme Court held that the State is empowered to issue appropriate notifications under the Act to enforce its policy, provided it complies with the law, and that the High Court should not dispense with statutory requirements. Consequently, the Court permitted the State to issue the notification and partly allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the State of Rajasthan can issue a notification under the Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 to shift the market yard without complying with the statutory procedure.
Whether the High Court, exercising suo motu jurisdiction under Article 226, can direct the State to shift the market without the State satisfying the statutory requirements of the Act.

Subjects

public interest litigationtraffic congestionmarket relocationagricultural produce market actnotificationstatutory compliancehigh court jurisdictionsuo moturegulation of trade

Judgment

A JAIPUR ALOO AARA TIYA SANGH AND ORS.

STA TE OF RAJAS THAN AND ORS.

SEPTEMBER 13, 2006
,, ...
B [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.]

Constitution uf India, 1950-Article 226-Public Interest litigation-
Problem of traffic congestion in city ofJaipur-Shifting of vegetable and fruit
C marker-Direction by High Court to the State Government to take steps-
State Government proposing to issue Notification for shifting market--
Challenge to---Held: State permitted to issue appropriate notifications as are
necessary for enforcement of its policy/ scheme in accordance with requirement
of law-Agrirnlture Produce Market Act, 196/-Section 5(2).

D The High Court of Rajasthan initiated suo motu proceedings in the
nature of public interest litigation. In the said proceedings, several orders
were passed by it from time to time in respect of traffic congestion in the city.
On 14.8.2003, High Court directed a complete ban 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. Aggrieved appellants
E filed application in the matter. A Monitoring Committee was formed by the
High Court, which submitted a report on 2.1.2004. The report drew attention
of the High Court to various difficulties faced in the matter of traffic
management in the city. The State of Rajasthan, Monitoring Committee and
Appellant Associations agreed in principle that the trucks can be allowed on
F a specified route between 11 A.M. to 12.30 PM. On 27.8.2004, the High Court
directed the State Government to take effective steps for ironing out the
difficulties and making it feasible for the Mandi to be shifted from the existing
market yard situated at Lal Kothi to village Mohana within 8 months.
Aggrieved appellants approached this Court.

G Respondent-State contended that they had proposed to issue a
notification by virtue of which the Agriculture Produce Marketing Committee
would establish a new market complex Sukia-Mohana Road (terminal point)
as the principal market yard and denotify the earlier declared Lal Kothi
Principal Market Yard and 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
H M ·
JAIPUR ALOO AARA TIYA SANGH v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN 85
the proposed notification. A
On the other hand, appellants contended that the proposed notification
does not fulfil the statutory requirements laid down under the said Act; that
for issuance of such a notification due application of mind on the part of the
the State was imperative and not on the premise that the High Court had
passed an order in that behalf and that the proposed market-yard at Mohana B
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.

Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The High Court intended to deal with some of the maladies C
which are existing in the town of Jaipur. The public interest involved in the
matter is apparent [90-DI

2. 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 D
be complied with; the court ordinarily should not dispense therewith. The
Rajasthan Agriculture Produce Market Act, 1961 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 steps are taken, the validity E
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. The
,;
State is permitted to issue appropriate notifications as are necessary for
enforcement of its policy/ scheme in accordance with law. (90-E-G; 91-CI

Jan Mohammad Noor Mohammad Begban v. State of Gujarat and Anr., F
(1966] l SCR 505, referred to.

3. Further, the members of Appellant Associations also agreed to shift
their business to the shops allotted by the Market Committee in Block D.
(91-H; 92-AJ G
,..
....... 4. The State 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. (92-C[ H
86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4103 of2006.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.2.2004, 20.10.2004 and 28.1.2005
of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B.C. W.P. No. 4783/2003 and
D.B.C.R.P. No. 8 of2005. .. -

B WITH

Civil Appeal No. 4104 of2006.

Dr. Rajiv Dhavan, Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sushi! Kumar Jain. Puneet Jain,
H.D. Thanvi, Sarad Singhania, A. Mariarputhan, Aruna Mathur and Mini N.
C Nair (for Mis. Arputham Aruna & Co.) for the Appellants.
Aruneshwar Gupta, A.A.G, Naveen Kumar Singh, Mukul Sood, Shashwat
Gupta. Shikha Tandon, Manish Singhvi and P.V. Yogeswaran for the
Respondents.

D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

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.
E
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:

"(a) filth and squalor is not being removed,
F (b) trucks are being allowed to be parked on road sides,
(c) cattle and animals are allowed to roam freely on city roads,
(d) city roads are dug at several places and this state of affairs is
continuing for a long period of time. and
G (e) 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.
H
JAIPUR ALOO AARA TIYA SANGH r. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [S.B. SINHA, J.] 87

Several orders were passed by it from time to time in respt.ct of traffic A
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 B
roads.

The Trucks shall not be allowed to enter or ply in the city of Jaipur
from 6 am to I0.30 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 C
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 I0.30 p.m. The same affected carriage of vegetables
and fruits to the town of Jaipur. In relation to the said order Appellants herdn D
intended to intervene. An application in that behalf was filed by them ii' 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 E
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 (i) shifting the F

-
Phal~Sabzi Mandi from Lal Kothi to Village Sukia-Muhana (near
Sanganer) at the earliest and, .if possible within 2 (two months) and
(ii) 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 7 within 2(two) years by starting the work thereof G
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
H
88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 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.

B 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,
C 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 difficulti1:s which need to be ironed out. The State Government
shall take effective steps for ironing out the difficulties and making it
D feasible for the Mandi to be shifted to Mohana wi•hin 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
E 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
F 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, Addi.
Advocate General stated that keeping in view the issue raised by the
G 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."
H
I
JAIPUR ALOO AARA TIYA SANGH,._ STATE OF RAJASTHAN [S.B. SINHA, J ] 89
Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate General for the A
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, 196 J. 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:· B

"The Government of Rajasthan established the Agriculture Produce
Market Committee (Fruii & 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
c
New Market Complex Sukiiiyan, 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 D
Sukhiyan, Muhar.a 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-secti0n (3) of
Section 4 of the aforesaid Act, the Government of Rajasthan hereby E
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
F
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 G
J~ Corporation shall be (Market Property) Principal Market Area, as has
,,. been defined in Part - I0 of Sub-section (I) 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 H
90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 12006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 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
B 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
C 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.
D
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
E 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 dea1ers in
F 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.

G In Jan Mohammad Noor Mohammad Begban v. State of Gujarat and
Anr., (I 966] 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
H not in the nature of trade. If regulation of trade in agricultural produce
JAIPUR ALOO AARA TIYA SANGH 1·. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [S.B. SINHA, J.°] 9J

by the declaration of market area and imposition of restrictions may A
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 u~reasonable. 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 B
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 pennitted to carry
out its statutory functions.

We, therefore, pennit the State to issue appropriate notification(s) as is/ C
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
inten.ded to declare the specified area at village Mohana as a tenninal point.
The State has sought to explain the same stating: . ·
D
''.It is respectfully submitted that Terminal Market is only the nall)e 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 developed in. total area of 78 hectares as against only 2. 78
hectares at Lal Kothi. Out of 78 hectares· 63 hectares have been E
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 acquisltion of land F
forthe establishment of Mandi Yard at.Mohana, Jaipur. The facilities.
of street light, electricity, lightiiig, block ~onnection, 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, G
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
H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 6 S.C.R.

A 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
B notifications leaying 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
C 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 requts1te steps for
D 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 Cou~ 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.
E
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.

D.G. Appeal partly allowed.