9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notifications issued under Sections 2(i-a), 3, 4, and the first proviso to Section 5 of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933. 2. Whether Section 2(i-a) of the Act constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative power. 3. Whether the notifications under Sections 2(i-a), 3, and 4 are repugnant to Article 301 and not saved by Article 305 of the Constitution. 4. Whether the objections and suggestions by the petitioners were duly considered before issuing the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Validity of Notifications Under Sections 2(i-a), 3, 4, and the First Proviso to Section 5 The petitioners challenged the notifications issued by the State Government declaring chillies as a commercial crop and establishing market areas in Guntur district. The notifications were issued under the powers conferred by Sections 2(i-a), 3, and 4 of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933. The petitioners contended that the notifications were invalid as Section 2(i-a) did not confer the necessary power to the Government. The Court found that the notifications were valid, as they were issued under the powers conferred by the Act, which is a valid piece of legislation aimed at regulating the buying and selling of commercial crops to prevent exploitation of growers by middlemen. Issue 2: Unlawful Delegation of Legislative Power The petitioners argued that Section 2(i-a) of the Act, which allows the State Government to notify any crop as a commercial crop, constitutes an unlawful delegation of legislative power. The Court rejected this argument, citing the Supreme Court's decision in *Mohammad Hussain v. State of Bombay* and *Vasanlal Maganbhai Sanjanwala v. State of Bombay*, which upheld similar provisions in other Acts. The Court noted that the Act provides sufficient guidance through its preamble and body to ensure that only crops requiring regulation are notified. The legislative policy and principles are clearly enunciated, and the power conferred on the Government is neither uncanalized nor uncontrolled. Issue 3: Repugnancy to Article 301 and Not Saved by Article 305 The petitioners contended that the notifications issued under Sections 2(i-a), 3, and 4 of the Act were repugnant to Article 301 of the Constitution, which guarantees freedom of trade, commerce, and intercourse throughout India. They argued that these notifications were not saved by Article 305, which protects existing laws from the operation of Article 301. The Court found this argument fallacious, noting that the notifications were issued under an existing law (the Act), which is protected by Article 305. The Act itself, being an existing law, provides the necessary authority for the issuance of these notifications, and they do not constitute a fresh law. Issue 4: Consideration of Objections and Suggestions The petitioners claimed that the State Government did not duly consider their objections and suggestions before issuing the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The Court examined the relevant records and found that the Government had fully and objectively considered the objections and suggestions before declaring the area within the Guntur district as a notified area for chillies. The notification was issued only after the Government was satisfied that chillies were a commercial crop requiring regulation. Conclusion The Court dismissed all the writ petitions, finding no merit in any of the contentions advanced by the petitioners. The notifications issued under Sections 2(i-a), 3, and 4 of the Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933, were held to be valid, and the Act itself was found to be a valid piece of legislation with sufficient safeguards against excessive delegation of legislative power. The objections and suggestions of the petitioners were duly considered, and the notifications were not repugnant to Article 301 of the Constitution.
|
