VISHNU DAYAL MAHENDRA PAL AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

VISHNU DAYAL MAHENDRA PAL AND OTHERS versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER

The Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadhan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and the Rules thereunder, including the constitution and functions of Market Committees, licensing conditions, requirement for storage, and the mandate of open auction for sale, do not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Sufficient guidance and safeguards (including appellate and revisional remedies) are provided to prevent arbitrary action, and the restrictions imposed are reasonable in light of the Act's objectives to regulate markets and protect producers.

Parties
Petitioners: Vishnu Dayal Mahendra Pal and Others; Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh and Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
01 May 1974
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Supreme Court of India Judgment
Outcome
Petitions dismissed.
Legal Topics
Validity of Statutory Provisions, Reasonableness of Restrictions on Business/trade, Licensing and Regulation of Trade, Fundamental Rights Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Agricultural Law Validity of Statutory Provisions Reasonableness of Restrictions on Business/trade Licensing and Regulation of Trade Fundamental Rights Articles 14 and 19(1)(g)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Vishnu Dayal Mahendra Pal and Others

Petitioners

State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition Under Article 32 of the Constitution / Supreme Court of India Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadhan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and the Rules made thereunder are violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the constitution of the Market Committee, scheme of licensing, and specific rules (70(4), 52(4), 76(1)) impose unreasonable restrictions on traders' rights

Ratio Decidendi

The Uttar Pradesh Krishi Utpadhan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 and the Rules thereunder, including the constitution and functions of Market Committees, licensing conditions, requirement for storage, and the mandate of open auction for sale, do not violate Articles 14 or 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Sufficient guidance and safeguards (including appellate and revisional remedies) are provided to prevent arbitrary action, and the restrictions imposed are reasonable in light of the Act's objectives to regulate markets and protect producers.

Court Disposition

Petitions dismissed.

Orders

  • All writ petitions are dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs.