Trace Your Case

GOVINDLAL CHHAGGAN LAL PATEL V. THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE, GODHRA AND OTHERS

Govindlal Chhaggan Lal Patel v. The Agricultural Produce Market Committee 1976 AIR 263.

ISSUE:

  • Whether the notification issued under Section 6(5) of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964, was invalid due to non-publication in Gujarati in a local newspaper?
  • Whether the procedural requirements of publication under Section 6(5), as read with Section 5, are mandatory or directory?

RULE:

  • Procedural safeguards in statutes with penal consequences, especially those restricting trade, are mandatory and must be strictly adhered to, as they protect the rights of affected parties by ensuring proper notice and opportunity for objections.
  • The term “shall” is presumptively mandatory, especially where it governs actions that significantly impact legal rights, unless there is compelling evidence of legislative intent to treat it as directory.

FACTS:

  • The appellant, Gvindlal Chhaggan Lal Patel, was prosecuted under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1964, for purchasing ginger in January and February 1969 without obtaining a license, as required under Section 8 of the Act.
  • The case arose when an Inspector of the Godhra Agricultural Produce Market Committee filed a complaint alleging a violation of the Act, which mandates licensing for trade in regulated agricultural produce within designated market areas.
  • The inclusion of ginger as a regulated item in the Godhra market area was based on a notification issued under Section 6(5) of the Act. This section requires notifications to be published in the Official Gazette and in Gujarati in a local newspaper to ensure adequate publicity.
  • The appellant contested the prosecution, arguing that the notification was invalid as it was not published in a Gujarati newspaper as required by the Act.
  • The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Godhra, acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution had failed to prove that the notification was validly published or promulgated.
  • On appeal, the Gujarat High Court reversed the acquittal, presuming the validity of the notification and convicting the appellant under Section 36 of the Act, imposing a fine of ₹10.
  • The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, contending that the High Court erred by:
  • Ignoring the mandatory publication requirements under Section 6(5).
  • Relying on a precedent under the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, which had different procedural standards.

HELD:

  • The Supreme Court held that Section 6(5) of the Gujarat Act mandates compliance with the procedural requirements in Section 5, including publication in Gujarati in a local newspaper.
  • The use of “shall” in Section 6 denotes that these requirements are mandatory, ensuring transparency, public awareness, and the protection of traders’ and agriculturists’ rights.
  • The Court found the notification, issued on February 16, 1968, invalid as it was not published in a Gujarati newspaper, rendering the inclusion of ginger in the list of regulated produce legally unenforceable.
  • The High Court erred by relying on a precedent under the Bombay Act and by assuming the notification’s validity without considering the stricter procedural requirements of the Gujarat Act.
  • The Supreme Court reinstated the acquittal by the Judicial Magistrate and held that no prosecution could be sustained based on the invalid notification.
  • The appellant’s fine of ₹10 was ordered to be refunded, emphasizing the importance of strict adherence to procedural safeguards in regulatory statutes with penal consequences.