Balbir Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J.—Rule D.B.

Learned counsels for the respondents accept notice.

At request of learned counsels for the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

The agriculture is the main source of Punjab. In order to facilitate the producer to sell his products various statutory measures have been taken. They include the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961 and the Rules framed thereunder. A notification dated 09.08.1963 is stated to have been issued framing the Punjab Market Committee Bye-laws for purposes of constituting the Market Committees.

The trading of grains occurs in the markets where contractors purchase the same. The full grains are separated from the small and broken grains as also from the chaff and what is sold is the full grains. The ownership rights in the small and broken grains and the chaff remain with the seller.

The present writ petition has been filed as a Public Interest Litigation by a set of three petitioners. The first are the farmers. The second are the women labourers stated to be engaged in separating small and broken grains from the chaff known as ''chhan/phoos'' after purchasing the same from the farmers and the third are the petty retailers who are stated to be engaged in purchasing small and broken grains from the labourers. It is the case of these petitioners that unreasonable restrictions are sought to be put under the agreement formats of the Market Committees whereby an authority is vested with the contractor which affects the financial rights of these petitioners. As illustration, the agreement in respect of Market Committee, Khanna, has been annexed. The main clauses in the agreement are as under:-

If any purchaser of the jhar-phoos purchases any jhar-phoos without the consent of the contractor, the contractor shall have the right to seek police help for taking action against those persons.

The persons/women who wish to purchase jhar-phoos from the market shall enter into the market only with the permission of the contractor and shall obtain a slip from the contractor in this regard. And no outsider than the contractor shall have a right to purchase jhar-phoos from market.

The submission, thus, is that there is no reason for the requirement of consent of the contractor who purchases only the whole grain and how can the entry of women labourers to purchase chhan/phoos which are purchased from the market be restricted subject to the whims and fancies of the contractor.

In respect of the aforesaid, our task is simplified by reason of an order dated 05.10.2010 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP-2959-2010 titled as Nachhatar Singh and others Vs Punjab Mandi Board and others. This very controversy was raised in the petition wherein an affidavit was filed by the Mandi Board in terms whereof the writ petition was disposed of. The relevant paragraph of the affidavit which is extracted in the order dated 05.10.2010 reads as under:-

That the farmers have every right over the "Chhan/Phoos" that consists of broken/small size grain and other waste/foreign matter, separated from his produce by the cleaning. A farmer, who has every right over the "Chhan/Phoos" separated from his produce, may choose to take it back or sell it to any one in its entirely. However, if a farmer chooses to collect only the broken/small size grain and leave the waste/foreign matter that is of no use to him, then the contractor has a right to collect/dispose of the same by any means necessary so that the market remains clean and space is available for keeping the newly arrived produce. Further, it is relevant to mention here that in the terms and conditions of auction for giving the contract for year 2010-2011, which were signed by all the bidders present at the time of auction, it was made clear that a farmer has every right over the "Chhan/Phoos" separated from his agricultural produce.

The Mandi Board as well as the Marketing Committee faced with the aforesaid position had filed a counter-affidavit reiterating the stand reflected in the earlier proceedings. It has been averred that in view of the stand already taken in CWP-2959-2010, no cause of action survives and the farmers have every right to claim the broken/small size grains separated from the produce and can take it back home or sell it to anyone. The only reference to clauses 9 and 10 is that since huge amount of income is involved, those clauses have been incorporated, but the farmer has full right to take back chhan/phoos to his house and sell it at his will. The role of the contractor is stated to be only to keep the grain market clean and free from the remainder of food grains and not to restrain the farmers.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that in fact in the agreement subsequent clauses 9 and 10 stand deleted. He, however, has some reservation even with the new agreement, as it still puts a condition that a farmer can sell it only to the contractor.

In our view, what emerges from the aforesaid controversy is that there is no dispute over the ownership of the broken/small size grains and other waste/foreign matters separated from the produce by cleaning. There is also no dispute over the ownership of the farmers on the chhan/phoos separated from the produce. There is again no dispute that the farmer has the right to take it away or to sell it to anybody it chooses.

The controversy, thus, sought to be raised is that when the sale takes place in the market, some waste or foreign matter is left, the cleaning of which is the responsibility of the contractor and that is why the arrangement was so made.

In our view, the market conditions and the areas have been created as facilities for the farmer to sell his produce. Thus, it is completely impractical to expect that having spent on transporting the material to the Market Committee area, the farmers should take away the broken and small grains and the chhan/phoos to sell somewhere else. This has left them playing into the hands of the contractors by compelling them to sell the product to the contractors for which they get lesser price, as urged by learned counsel for the petitioners, as compared to what they obtain from the women labourers who take away the chhan/phoos and the petty retailers who take away the small and broken grains. We are thus of the view that there can be no restriction on the sale of chhan/phoos and small/broken grains in the market itself in the manner the farmers have been doing. It not only provides facilities to the farmers, but provides a source of livelihood to the small retailers and the women labourers who largely carry on the tasks of chhan/phoos. Thus, any condition imposing such restriction by any Market Committee would be invalid.

We are, however, conscious of the fact that there may be requirement of the market area to be kept clean the responsibility of which is of the contractor. Thus, the Market Committees can lay down norms and authorize contractors for making necessary directions to ensure that the area remains clean by compelling the petty retailers and the purchasers of chhan/phoos to clear the same when they take it away.

Respondent No. 2 being the Punjab Mandi Board will issue administrative instructions to all the Marketing Committees to bring in the uniform practice in this behalf.

The petition accordingly stands disposed of.