# Gupta v. Rajghat Education Centre - **Citation:** (2003) 3 ILRA 777 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2003-07-07 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26386 of 2003 - **Bench:** M. Katju, R.S. Tripathi - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gupta-v-rajghat-education-centre-40200 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India-Article-226-U.P. Krishi Utapadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964 Sec. 7 (2) (b) Transfer of business premises-Notification issued-whole seller of food grain and Vegetablesheld-Notification issued in the public interest-to avoid congestion in the city - Advocate Commissioner's report in favour of shifting market-can not be interfered under writ jurisdiction Held-Para 15 An Advocate Commissioner Sri J.J. Munir Advocate, High Court by our order dated 22.04.2003 for inspecting the existing mandis of foodgrains, fruits and vegetables, etc. at Kanpur City and he has submitted a report to which an objection has also been filed by the Mandi Samiti, Kanpur. In this report the Advocate Commissioner after discussing the facts in details has observed in conclusion that it is apparent that the public is put to great inconvenience due to the existing subzi mandi. 1987 UPLBEC 394 1993 A.W.C. 1593 1983 ALJ 786 AIR 1981 S.C. 1127 Held- Para 25 Since it has been held that a Notification under section 7 (2)(b) is a legislative activity we are of the opinion that the Court should exercise judicial restraint in interfering with such legislative activity. A Notification under section 7 (2)(b) is a piece of delegated legislation and it can be struck down only if (1) it violates some provision of the parent Act, or (2) it violates some provision of the Constitution. In our opinion the impugned Notification dated 09.03.1981 and the subsequent Notification e.g. of 15.11.1997 are clearly within the ambit of section 7 (2)(b) of the Act, and it has not been shown that they violate any other provision of the Act. Hence, it cannot be said that these Notifications are ultra vires any provision of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964. ## Text http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 3 All] Devendrajeet Vadra V. State of U.P. and others 777 declaratory relief. Similar view has been taken in two other full Bench decisions of this Court in D.G. Vidyalaya Association Vs. State of U.P. AIR 1962, Allahabad 187 and Sheo Kumar V. State of U.P. AIR 1978 Allahabad 386. Similar view has been taken by the division Bench decision of this Court in Green Field Corporation Limited and another versus U.P. Financial Corporation 2002 UPLBEC, 1789 vide para 12. 5. The prayer that Rule 6 be declared ultra vires Section 19 of the Act is nothing but a prayer for declaration. Hence without a prayer for a consequential relief, such declaration can not be granted. As regards, the consequential relief, which is contained in relief (ii) of the petition it is really a relief for a prohibition though as a declaration, as already observed by us above, such relief can be claimed before the Calcutta High Court and not before this Court. 6. For the reasons given above, this petition stands dismissed but with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Calcutta High Court for appropriate relief. 7. We have not gone into the merits of the case we have only dismissed this petition on a preliminary point. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 7.7.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26386 of 2003 Devendrajeet Vadra ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri D.K. Misra Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Constitution of India-Article 226maintainability-writ petition against private body-held-not maintainablepetition dismissed. Held- Para 2 In our opinion this writ petition is not maintainable as the respondent no. 3 is a private body being a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act. Case law referred: 2003 (1) AWC 503, 2003 ALJ 980 (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.) 1. The petitioner has prayed for a mandamus directing the respondent no. 3. M/s Motion Pictures Association, Mangal Market, Chandni Chowk, New Delhi to treat the petitioner as one of its members as per Article of Association. 2. In our opinion this writ petition is not maintainable as the respondent no. 3 is a private body being a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act. http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 778 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 3. It is well settled, that ordinarily, no writ lies against private body except a writ of habeas Corpus vide Dr. A.K. Gupta v. Rajghat Education Centre 2003 (1) AWC 503 and General Manager, Modipon Fibre Co. v. Narendra Pal 2003 ALJ 980 etc. 4. In paragraph 5 of the petition it is stated that as per the Constitution and Articles of Association of respondent no. 3 unless one is a member of the association one cannot be provided with film for exhibition of films from any other member who is engaged in distribution of films in U.P. and Delhi. 5. In our opinion a private body can always make a rule restricting its membership on certain conditions. The respondent no. 3 is not an instrumentality of the State and hence this writ petition is not maintainable and it is dismissed. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE R.S. TRIPATHI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43985 of 1997 Kanpur Aloo Arhati Association and another ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri R.N. Singh Sri Arun Kumar Counsel for the Respondents: Sri B.D. Mandhyan Sri Ajay Sharma S.C. Constitution of India-Article-226-U.P. Krishi Utapadan Mandi Adhiniyam 1964 Sec. 7 (2) (b) Transfer of business premises-Notification issued-whole seller of food grain and Vegetablesheld-Notification issued in the public interest-to avoid congestion in the city - Advocate Commissioner's report in favour of shifting market-can not be interfered under writ jurisdiction Held-Para 15 An Advocate Commissioner Sri J.J. Munir Advocate, High Court by our order dated 22.04.2003 for inspecting the existing mandis of foodgrains, fruits and vegetables, etc. at Kanpur City and he has submitted a report to which an objection has also been filed by the Mandi Samiti, Kanpur. In this report the Advocate Commissioner after discussing the facts in details has observed in conclusion that it is apparent that the public is put to great inconvenience due to the existing subzi mandi. 1987 UPLBEC 394 1993 A.W.C. 1593 1983 ALJ 786 AIR 1981 S.C. 1127 Held- Para 25 Since it has been held that a Notification under section 7 (2)(b) is a legislative activity we are of the opinion that the Court should exercise judicial restraint in interfering with such legislative activity. A Notification under section 7 (2)(b) is a piece of delegated legislation and it can be struck down only if (1) it violates some provision of the parent Act, or (2) it violates some provision of the Constitution. In our opinion the impugned Notification dated 09.03.1981 and the subsequent Notification e.g. of 15.11.1997 are clearly within the ambit of section 7 (2)(b) of the Act, and it has not been shown that they violate any other provision of the Act. Hence, it cannot be said that these Notifications are ultra vires any provision of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964.