LAKHAN LAL AND OTHERS ETC. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS ETC.

LAKHAN LAL AND OTHERS ETC. versus THE STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS ETC.

The procedure prescribed by the Act and Rules was duly followed for declaring and constituting the market area, establishing the market, levying fees, and such actions were lawful, non-discriminatory, not excessive, and supported by a valid quid pro quo. The State was not required to implement the Act and Rules uniformly throughout Bihar immediately; gradual implementation is permissible and not violative of Article 14.

Parties
Petitioner: Lakhan Lal and Others; Respondent: State of Bihar and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 March 1968
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition, Civil Appeal, Criminal Appeal / Final Supreme Court Disposition
Outcome
Petitions and appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Market Regulation, Discrimination Under Article 14, Taxation Vs Fees, Licensing Under Agricultural Produce Markets Act
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Agricultural Law Market Regulation Discrimination Under Article 14 Taxation Vs Fees Licensing Under Agricultural Produce Markets Act

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lakhan Lal and Others

Petitioner

State of Bihar and Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition, Civil Appeal, Criminal Appeal / Final Supreme Court Disposition

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the notification declaring the market area was too wide
  2. 2 Whether the market was properly established with required facilities and equipment
  3. 3 Whether fees levied by the market committee were in the nature of taxes and therefore illegal due to lack of services rendered

Ratio Decidendi

The procedure prescribed by the Act and Rules was duly followed for declaring and constituting the market area, establishing the market, levying fees, and such actions were lawful, non-discriminatory, not excessive, and supported by a valid quid pro quo. The State was not required to implement the Act and Rules uniformly throughout Bihar immediately; gradual implementation is permissible and not violative of Article 14.

Court Disposition

Petitions and appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Civil Appeal No. 1971 of 1966, Writ Petition Nos. 199 and 103 of 1967, and Criminal Appeals Nos. 164-168 of 1966 are dismissed with costs. There will be one hearing fee.