# JAN MOHAMMAD NOOR MOHAMMAD BEGBAN v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER - **Citation:** [1966] 1 S.C.R. 505 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1965-08-18 - **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 11 of 1964 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/jan-mohammad-noor-mohammad-begban-v-state-of-gujarat-and-another-3629 - **Pages:** 18 ## Headnote , A ,. B c D • E ' F G H 505 JAN MOHAMMAD NOOR MOHAMMAD BEGBAN v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER August 18, 1965 [p. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K.. N. WANCHOQ, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH AND 5. M. SIB.RI. JJ.J Gujarat Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1964 (20 of 1964), ss. 5, 6, 27(2) and 30 validity of-Whether violative of Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution-Rules under the Act, validity of. The Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act (22 of 1939) was enacted by the Provincial Legislature of Bombay and under the said Act the Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1941 were framed. By a notification issued under the Act, the whole area within a radius of 12 miles of Ahmedabad City was declared in respect of certain agricultural produce, a market area for the purposes of the Act. A market yard and a market proper were also established for transactions in specified commodities. Under the Bombay Reorganisation Act 11 of 1960 which becami> operative as from May 1, 1960 two States-Maharashtra and Gujaratw1>re carved out of the territory of the former State of Bombay and the town of Ahmedabad was included within the State of Gujarat, but Bombay Act 22 of 1939 continued for the time being to remain applicable to the Gujarat region by virtue of s. 87 of Act 11 of 1960. Subsequently the· Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act 20 of 1964 wag passed but u!lder s. 64 of the Act the Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1941 remained in operation. The petitioner filed a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that Gujarat Act 20 of 1964 \Vas illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional and violative of Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India and therefore null and void and that the rules framed thereunder (being the Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1941) were also ultra vires, unconstitutional, illegal, nun and void. He prayed for a writ of mandamus forbidding the State of Gujarat from enforcing any of the provision9 of the Act and the Rules. The following grounds were urged in support of the petition : (1) The powers conferred by ss. 5 and 6 of the Act were unfettered, wide and unguided and on that account the fundamental rights of the petitioner were infringed. (2) Retail sales which were not regulated by the provisions of the 1>arlier Act were sought to bo regulated by Gujarat Act 20 of 1964. (3) Retail trade was completely prohibited by the Act and the prohibition amounted to an unreasonable restriction upon the funda· mental rights of the petitioner. ( 4) Section 30 of the Act gave wide powers to evict a person carrying on business without a licence from the market area. (5) Section 27(2) not having provided the maximum licence fee chargeable was illegal. ( 6) The market committee had no power to function as it was not constituted according to law. The period of office of the old committee which was to function for three years under Bombay Act 22 of 1939 had expired in 1961 but the committee continued to function and no fresh elections were held. (7) The rules pursuant to which the market committee was constituted and functioned not ba\ing been placed before the Legislature in the first meeting after the mies were promulgated under Act 22 of 1939 as required by that Act, the mies were unauthorised and so there was complete absence of machinery for enforcement of 1he Act. Despite the suspension Qf Art. 19 hy virtuo· 506 SUPRBMI! COURT REPORTS [1966) l S.C.R. of the operation of Art. 358 .of the Constitution in the state of Emergency A declared by the President m December 1902, the Coun decided the petition on merits because breach of fundamental rights under Arts. 14 and 31 was also alleged. HELD: (i) The object of the Act being to ameliorate the condition of agriculturists and to do away with middlemen, who, it is a matter of .. common knowledge, make large and unconscionable profits out of the transactions carried out through them, declaration under s. 5, of intention B to regulate tr ## Text _Characters 0–39,909 of 49,776. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39909 for what follows._ , A ,. B c D • E ' F G H 505 JAN MOHAMMAD NOOR MOHAMMAD BEGBAN v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER August 18, 1965 [p. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K.. N. WANCHOQ, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH AND 5. M. SIB.RI. JJ.J Gujarat Agricultural Produce Marketing Act, 1964 (20 of 1964), ss. 5, 6, 27(2) and 30 validity of-Whether violative of Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution-Rules under the Act, validity of. The Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act (22 of 1939) was enacted by the Provincial Legislature of Bombay and under the said Act the Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1941 were framed. By a notification issued under the Act, the whole area within a radius of 12 miles of Ahmedabad City was declared in respect of certain agricultural produce, a market area for the purposes of the Act. A market yard and a market proper were also established for transactions in specified commodities. Under the Bombay Reorganisation Act 11 of 1960 which becami> operative as from May 1, 1960 two States-Maharashtra and Gujaratw1>re carved out of the territory of the former State of Bombay and the town of Ahmedabad was included within the State of Gujarat, but Bombay Act 22 of 1939 continued for the time being to remain applicable to the Gujarat region by virtue of s. 87 of Act 11 of 1960. Subsequently the· Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act 20 of 1964 wag passed but u!lder s. 64 of the Act the Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1941 remained in operation. The petitioner filed a petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution seeking a declaration that Gujarat Act 20 of 1964 \Vas illegal, ultra vires, unconstitutional and violative of Arts. 14, 19 and 31 of the Constitution of India and therefore null and void and that the rules framed thereunder (being the Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Rules, 1941) were also ultra vires, unconstitutional, illegal, nun and void. He prayed for a writ of mandamus forbidding the State of Gujarat from enforcing any of the provision9 of the Act and the Rules. The following grounds were urged in support of the petition : (1) The powers conferred by ss. 5 and 6 of the Act were unfettered, wide and unguided and on that account the fundamental rights of the petitioner were infringed. (2) Retail sales which were not regulated by the provisions of the 1>arlier Act were sought to bo regulated by Gujarat Act 20 of 1964. (3) Retail trade was completely prohibited by the Act and the prohibition amounted to an unreasonable restriction upon the funda· mental rights of the petitioner. ( 4) Section 30 of the Act gave wide powers to evict a person carrying on business without a licence from the market area. (5) Section 27(2) not having provided the maximum licence fee chargeable was illegal. ( 6) The market committee had no power to function as it was not constituted according to law. The period of office of the old committee which was to function for three years under Bombay Act 22 of 1939 had expired in 1961 but the committee continued to function and no fresh elections were held. (7) The rules pursuant to which the market committee was constituted and functioned not ba\ing been placed before the Legislature in the first meeting after the mies were promulgated under Act 22 of 1939 as required by that Act, the mies were unauthorised and so there was complete absence of machinery for enforcement of 1he Act. Despite the suspension Qf Art. 19 hy virtuo· 506 SUPRBMI! COURT REPORTS [1966) l S.C.R. of the operation of Art. 358 .of the Constitution in the state of Emergency A declared by the President m December 1902, the Coun decided the petition on merits because breach of fundamental rights under Arts. 14 and 31 was also alleged. HELD: (i) The object of the Act being to ameliorate the condition of agriculturists and to do away with middlemen, who, it is a matter of .. common knowledge, make large and unconscionable profits out of the transactions carried out through them, declaration under s. 5, of intention B to regulate trade in agricullural produce in a specified area, after hearing the objecllons and sugges~ions of interested parties, cannot be regarded a& imposing unreasonable restrictions oa the right to carry on trade. The preamble to the Act and the scheme of the Act clearly indicate that the powers conferred upon the Director arc to be exercised for the purpose of regulating buying and selling of agricultural produce and for that purpmo to C3tablish markets for sale and purchase of agricultural produce. The powers under s. 6 are also to be exercised after giving an opponunity to C persorts interested to raise objections or to make suggestions as to tlie proposed introduction of control on sale and purchase of agricultural produce. The autborily conferred upon the Director is not wide and arbitrary merly because no principles are indicated for guidance. (515 D-H] (ii) If regulation of trade in agricultural produce by the declaration of market area and imposition of restrictions may be regarded as rca.sonablo when opcratiog on the wholesale trade it would be difficult to hold that the identical restriction when operating on retail trade may be pa u Wlreasonable_ (5 I 6 Fl Moliamnrad llussain Gulani /.{ohanJ11111d and Anr. v. StrJ:t' of Bihar ,~ ,for., (1962) 2 S.C.R. 659, referred to. (ili) Ap11n from the geoerality of the provkions made in the Gu;arat Act and the omission of retail .salas from the schca1c of exclusion, the Act nod the rules clearly indicate that retail sales arc not sought to be regulated by the provisions of the Act. It was rightly conceded on behalf of the State that the Act r""d together with the rules does not purport to place any restriction upon relail transactions in agriculural produce. 'lllcrcfoce no ticcnco is required untler the Act for carrying oo retail trade in Agricultural produce in the m:trkct area, an~ there is no prohit>itioP against the carrying on of retail sa1e in :igricultural produce jn the r.13r~a ! area. (518 C-D) (iv) Section 30 of the Act authorhes the eviction frl)01 the m:!rket of any person found to be operating in th!! market \vilhout holding a v:tlid licence. The po\ver of eviction by the market como:ii~tee .is limited to eviction from the precincts of the market. 1 he prov1s1on 1s app:trc'ltly enacted for the purpose of imposing an additionJI penally :i.~ainst infrac· 1ion of lhc prohibition contained in s: 6(2). 'Oi:iera!ing in. 1he 1:1.arkct area· can in the context only rncan u-;1ng a plo:ce 1n the m:-in<~'. :'ltc:l for the purchase or o;;ale of agricul!ural produce :.p7cificd in th~ .11otif.c-1!ion under s. 6(2) othcr,\·i..;~ :han in accordance \\1th the rHov1s1{l:'ls. <:·f th"~ Act. The apprehension of the petitioner that a oer'.->nn infri~g:n-: th•: regulatory provisions of the Act may be comp~ll1."d IP 11::1-.·e hi.i> t-carth and h('lme at the instance of the m:irket authont1c .... \\·;1" to~:11ly u:ifound· ed. [518 H-519 CJ (v) In terms s. 27(2) provides that the licences m.'Y be granted _in such forms, for such periods, on such terms and cond1t1ons :ind resin~ tioM u may be prescribed or determined by the hye-laws and on payment C'lf fees dct~rmine 508 SUPREME COUllT REPORTS [ 1966) I S.C.R. take out licences authorising them to carry on their trade. Certain A traders in agricultural produce file (3) that retail trade was completely prohibited by the Act and the prohibition amount~d to an un· reasonable restriction upon the fundamental rights of the petitioner; ( 4) that s. 30 of the Act gave wide powers to evict a person carrying on business without a licence, from the market area; ( 5) that s. 27 ( 2) not having provided the ma~i mum licence fee chargeable was illegal; ( 6) that the market committee had no power tc> function as it was not constituted according to law. The period of office of the old committee which was to function for three years under Bomb3y Act 22 of 1939 had expired in 1961, but the committee continued to function and no fresh elections were held; and ( 7) that the rules pursuant to which the market committee was constituted and functioned not having been placed before the Legislature in the first meeting after the rules were promulgated under the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, a~ required by that Act, the rules were unauthorised and there was comG H • • A JAN MOHAMMAD V. STATE (Shah, J.) plete absence of machinery for enforcement of the Act. SIL Counsel submitted ltbiat the pet,itioner~s fundamental rights under Arts. 14, 19 & 31 of the Constitution were infringed by enactment of the Act and the promulgation of the Rules and byeB Jaws and the exercise of the authority by the State of Gujarat and the market committee pursuant thereto. It may at once be observed that the President of India having declared in the month of December 1962 a state of emergency in exercise of the powers reserved under the Constitution, the right to enforce the fundamental rights guaranteed under Art. 19 of the Constitution C remains suspended by virtue of Art. 358 for the duration of the· period of the emergency. On this ground alone, a large majority of the contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner may fail. But we have heard full arguments on the petition and as the petitioner has attempted to urge that by the Act and the Rules and the Bye-laws the guaranteed freedoms under Arts. 14 & 31 D are also infringed, we propose to decide this petition on the merits, apart from the preliminary objection as to the suspension of Art. 19 which disentitles the petitioner during the subsistence· of the emergency from obtaining any relief from this Court on the footing of the breach of his fundamental right to carry on business. E We may usefully refer in the first instance to certain provisions of the Act which are material for the purpose of this petition. The Act is enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to the regulation of buying and selling of agricultural produce and the establishment of markets for agricultural proF duce in the State of Gujarat. Section 2 defines various expressions in the Act. "Agricultural produce" is defined as meaning all produce, whether proceised or not, of agriculture, horticulture and animal husbandry, specified in the Schedule, [cl. (i)] : "licence" means a licence granted under s. 6, or, as the case may G H be a general or special licence granted under s. 27, [cl. (ix)] : "market" means a market declared or deemed to be declared under the Act, [cl. (xii)] : "market area" means any area declared or deemed to be declared to be a market area under the Act, [cl. (xiii)] : "market committee" means a market committee established or deemed to be established under the Act, [cl. (xiv)]: "market proper" means any area declared or deemed to be declared to be· a market proper under the Act, [(cl. xv)] : "principal market yard" means an enclosure, building or locality declared or deemed to be declared to be a principal market yard under the Act, 512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [J%GJ I S.C.R. {cl. (xvii)]: "retail sale"' means a sale of any agricultural produce not exceeding such quantity as a market committee may by bye-laws determine to be a retail sale in respect of such agricultural produce, [cl. (xviii)]: and "trader·· means any person, who carries on the business of buying or selling of agricultural produce or of processing agricultural produce for sale [cl. (xxiii)l. Section 5 authorises the Director (appointed by the State Government) to declare his intention of regulating the purchase and sale of such agricultural produce and in such area, as may be specified therein. Section 6 authorises the Director to declare an area specified in the notification as market area. It provides that after the expiry of the period specified in the notification issued under s. 5 and after considering the objections and suggestions received before its expiry and holding such inquiry as may be necessary, the Director may, by notification in the Official Gazette declare the area specified in the notification or any portion thereof to be a market area for the purposes -s. (3) it is provided that nothing in sul>-s. (2) shall apply to the purchase or sale of any such agricultural produce. if its producer is himself the seller and the purchaser purchases it for his own private consumption. Section 7 provides that for ead1 market area. there shall be a market which shall consist of--(i) one principal market yard, (ii) sub-market yards. if any. and (iii) all markets proper notified under sui>-ss. (2) & (3); by sub-s. (2) the D;rcctor is authorised to declare anv enclosure. building or localitv in any market area to be a principal market yard and any other enclosure. building or locality to be a sub-market yard. and a specified area as a market proper. Scx:tion 8 prohibits operations in the market area or any part thereof except under and in accordance with the conditions of a licence granted under the Act. Section 9 deals with the establishment and constitution of market committee or committees. Incorporation and constitution of market committees and their powers and duties :ire dealt "ith by Ch. IV of the Act which consists of ss. 10 to 31. By s. 26 it is provided that it shall be the duty of every market committee to maintain and manage the market. to take all possible steps to prevent adulteration and to promote grading and standarA • B c D E F G II • • ' • A B c D E JAN MOHAMMAD V. STATE (Shah, J.) 513 disation of the agricultural produce as may be prescribed, to provide such facilities in the market as the Director may from time to time direct and to enforce in the market area the provisions of the Act, the rules, bye-laws and the conditions of licences granted under the Act in connection with the purchase and sale of the agricultural produce with which it is concerned. It shall also be the duty of every market committee to collect and maintain such information relating to market intelligence as may be prescribed and to supply the same to Government whenever so required. Section 27 by the first sub-section provides that on the establishment of a market, the market committee may, subject to rules made in that behalf, grant or renew a general licence or a special licence for the purpose of any specific transaction or transactions to a trader, general commission agent, broker, weighman, surveyor, warehouseman or any person to operate in the market area or part thereof, or after recording its reasons therefor, refuse to grant or renew any such licence. By sub-s. (2) it is provided that licences may be granted under sub-s. ( 1) in such forms, for such periods, on such terms and conditions and restrictions as may be prescribed or determined by the bye-laws and on payment of fees determined by the market committee within such maxima as may be prescribed. By sub-s. ( 3) power is conferred upon the market committee to suspend or cancel a licence. Section 28 authorises the market committee to levy from time to time prescribed fee and to collect the same on the agricultural produce bought or sold in the market area. Chapter V deals with the Market Committee Fund and State Agriculfural Produce Market Fund. Chapter VI prohibits the collection of trade allowances, other than allowances prescribed by rules or byeF laws made under the Act. Chapter VII deals with offences. penalties, investigation and procedure for the trial of offences. Chapter VIII deals with the control by the Direclor and the State Government in the matter of administration of the Act and Ch. IX deals with miscellaneous matters, including the power to frame G H rules and bye-laws. The Act was, as is clear from its preamble and this review of its provisions, enacted with a view to provide satisfactory conditions for the growers of agricultural produce and to sell their produce on equal terms and at reasonable prices . The ordinary cultivator in our country suffers from many handicaps : he is generally illiterate, and often ignorant of the prevailing prices in the market of agricultural produce. Establishment of regulated markets is a well-known expedient for ameliorating the condition of the agricultural producers by eliminating the middlemen and bringing the consumers in direct contact with the 514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1966] I S.C.R. producers and thereby securing an ordered plan of agricultural development. The Legislature has, by the Act, attempted, with this object in view, to set up machinery for declaring certain areas as markets and for setting up market yards in which the business of selling and buying agriculturai produce may be carried on. The Act provides for the constitution of market committees authorised to maintain and manage the markets and to effectuate supervision, prevent adulteration and promote grading and standardisation of the agricultural produce and to enforce in the market area the provisions of the Act and the bye-laws. For that purpose the market committees arc authorised to grant licences and levy fees within the maxima as may be prescribed by the rules framed under the Act. The scheme of the Act is substantially A 8 the same as under the Bombay Act 22 of"! 9"39 which by s. 87 of the Bombay Reorganisation Act, 1960 continued to ;1pply to the territory of Gujarat even after the territory was constituted into a separate State. Power to fran1e rules under s. 59 for generally carrying out the provisions of the Act is conferred upon the State D Government by the Act, and until that power is exercised by virtue of s. 64, anything done or action taken (including any appointment, order, notification, rule, bye-law made, licence issued, or fee imposed) under the Bombay Act 22 of 1939 shall be deemed to ha vc been done or taken, under the corresponding provisions of the Act and shall continue in force until it is superseded by anything done or action taken under this Act. It appears that till the date on v:hich this petition was filed and even thereafter no rules were framed in exercise of t.h.c powers conferred under s. 59 by the State Government of Gujarat, and the rules framed under Bombay Act 22 of 1939 continue to remain in operation. Even the market committees which had been formed und~r the Act of l 919 continue to function and byc-la\\S framed hy them hold the field. This Court in :H.C.V.S. Ar111zachala Nadar ere. v. The State of Madras and Ors( 1 ) was called uoon to deal with the validity of F the Madras Commercial Crops Market' Act 20 of 1933. IP G that case certain traders had challcngcJ the validity of Madras Act 20 of 1913 on the j!round that the provisions of the Act imposed unreasonable restrictions upon their right to do busines;. and the Court on an exhaustive review of the provisions of the Act h.~ld that the provisions which imposed liability to take out a licence for carrying on trade in "commercial crops", and the JI restrictions relating to the place where the business may be carried (I) [19S9] Supp. l.S.C.R. 92 • • ' ' , ' • JAN MOHAMMAD V. STATE (Shah, J.) 515 A on were reasonable and did not infringe the right guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution. In Mohammad Hussain's case(') this Court held following the judgment in Arunachala Nadar's case(') that the impugned provisions viz. ss. 4, 4A, 5, 5A and 5AA of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act 22 B of 1939 were not unconstitutional. It was pointed out by this Court that the provisions impugned in that case were substantially the same as were contained in Madras Act 20 of 1933 and therefore the restrictions imposed by the impugned provisions could not be regarded as unreasonable. Section 5 of the Gujarat Act authorises the Director to declare c his intention to regulate purchase and sale of agricultural produce in a specified area after inviting objections or suggestions from the local authorities functioning in the area, and from other persons. By s. 6 of the Direct~r after considering the objections amd suggestions received within the period specified in the notification is authorised to declare the area or part thereof a market D area for the purposes of the Act in respect of all or any of kinds of produce specified in the notification. The object of the Act being to ameliorate the condition of agriculturists and to do away with the middlemen, who, it is a matter of common knowledge, make large and unconscionable profits out of the transactions carried out through them, declaration of intention to reguE late trade in agricultural produce in a specified area, after hearing the objections and suggestions of interested parties, cannot be regarded as imposing unreasonable restrictions on the right to carry on trade. The argument that the authority conferred upon the Director F is wide and arbitrary, because no principles are indicated for guidance has no force. The Director is appointed by the State Government to exercise such powers and perform such functions and duties as are conferred or imposed on him by or under the Act, and the exercise of the powers and the performance of the duties is for the purpose of regulating the purchase and sale of G agricultural produce and ther.~by doing away with malpractices in the trade. The preamble to the Act and the scheme of the Act clearly indicate that the powers conferred upon the Director are to be exercised for the purpose of regulating buying and selling of agricultural produce and for that purpose to establish markets for sale and purchase of agricultural produce. The powers under H s. 6 are to be exercised after giving an opportunity to persons interested to raise objections or to make suggestions to the pro- (2) [1959] Supp. I S.C.R. 92 516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1966] I S.C.R. posed introduction of control on sale and purchase of agricultural A produce. It is only after the objections and suggestions are received and considered by the Director in the light of the object and purpose of the Act, and he is satisfied that it is in the interest of the producer and the general public that there should be , regulation of the trade in agricultural produce in the specified area that he may proceed to declare the m:irkct area. ll It was urged on behalf of the petitioner th:it in Mohammad H11ssai11's case(') this Court had upheld the validity of provisions in the Bombay Act 22 of 1939 analogous to ss. 5 & 6 of the Gujarat Act only on the ground that by the Bombay Act retail trade was not intended to be controlled, whereas under the Gujarat Act authority is given to control the retail trade also, aad on that account the provisions of ss. 5 & 6 would be regarded as infringing the fundamental right to carry on trade and business. The question whether by the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder the L1!gislaturc has attempted to impose restrictions upon retail trade in agricultural produce will be presently considered when we deal with the second and the third contentions advanced by the petitioner. But assuming that such a power is conferred, we fail to appreciate how solely on that account it can be said that the provisions of the Act infringe Art. 19 (I )(g) of the Constitution or may be regarded as conferring an arbitrary authority. Reasonable restrictions on the right of a citizen to carry on tradc--rctail as well as wholesalo--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 trad~. !f regulation of trade in agricultural produce by the declaration c D F. of market area and imposition of restrictions may be regarded as F 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 ll11ssai11's case(') justify the argument urged by the petitioner. Challenge to th:~ validity of ss. 5 & 6 must therefore fail. It was urged by counsel for the petitioner that whereas retail sales were not regulated by the provisions of the Bombay Act 22 of 1939, those sales were sought to be regulated by the Gujarat Act, and as a result of the provisions enacted in that Act retail trade was completely prohibited. It was urged that there was no provision for licensing retail trade in agricultural produce, and in ---·-·- - - ·-·- (!) {1962) 2 S.C.R. 659 G II • ' • • • • JAN MOHAMMAD v. STATE (Shah,/.) 517 A view of the prohibition contained in s. 6(2) an unreasonable restriction was placed upon the right of the petitioner to carry on retail trade in agricultural produce. Section 6 (2) expressly provides that no place in any market area shall be used for the purchase or sale of any agricultural produce specified in the notification except in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and by II sub-s. (3) it is provided that nothing in sub-s. (2) shall apply to the purchase or sale of any such agricultural produce, if its producer is himself its seller and the purchaser purchases it for his own private consumption. It may appear at first sight that subject to the reservation of transactions covered by sub-s. (3), all trade in agriculC tural produce in the market area is sought to be brought within the regulatory provisions of the Act. The exception clause in s. 6 ( 3) is somewhat more restricted than the exception clause ins. 4(2A) of the Bombay Act 22 of 1939. Bys. 4(1) of the Bombay Act the Commissioner was authorised to constitute a market area and by sub-s. ( 2) it was provided that no place in such area shall, subD ject to the provisions of s. SA, be nsed for the purchase or sale of any agricultural produce specified in the notification issued thereunder. Sub-section (2A) of s. 4 provided that nothing in subs. (2) shall apply to the purchase or sale of such agricultural produce, if the producer of such produce is himself its seller and the purchaser is a person who purchases such produce for his own E private use or if such agricultural produce is sold to such person by way of a retail sale. There was an express provision made in the Bombay Act 22 of 1939 which excluded from the operation of sub-s. (2) sale of agricultural produce by way of retail sale. Under the Gujarat Act no such exclusion is expressly prescribed. But, apart from the generality of the provisions made in the Gujarat F Act and the omission of retail sales from the scheme of exclusion, the Act and the rules clearly indicate that retail sales are not sought to be regulated by the provisions of the Act. It may be noticed that the State of Gujarat has not framed any new rules : the rules framed under the Bombay Act 22 of 1939 remain in operation by virtue of s. 64 and the rules framed under the Bombay G Act 22 of 1939 have been framed on the footing that no retail sale is sought to be regulated thereby. Clause ( 4) of r. 53 excludes from the levy of fee sellers who are themselves producers of the agricultural produce offered for sale and buyers who by such produce for their own private and/ or household use. Rule 60 which deals with sales of agricultural produce and trading in H markets by the first clause provides that all agricultural produce brought into the market shall pass through the principal market yard or sub-market yards and shall not, subject to the provisions 518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1966] l S.C.R. ·Of sub-rule (2) be sold at any place outside such yards. Sub-rule (2) deals with processed agricutlural produce. By sub-rule (3) it is provided that such details of all agricultural produce resold in the market area shall also be reported to the market committee in accordance with the provisions of the bye-Jaws. Sub-rule ( 4) enacts that the price of agricultural produce brought into the market for sale shall be settled by open auction or by open agreement and not by secret signs and no deductions shalt be made from the agreed price of the consignment except for any authorised trade allow