Mohanlal vs State on 5 April, 2011
(xiii) of the APMC Act. He submitted that the whole of Chauryasi
Taluka was declared as a "market area" and all the
vegetable produce had to be regulated under the APMC Act. He relied
upon judgment of learned single Judge of this Court in Agricultural
Produce Market Committee v. Borsad Municipality [2006 (2) GCD 1701],
wherein the municipality was granting licence on a daily basis to
vendors who were selling fruits and vegetables as unauthorized
occupants on the land of municipality. The municipality did not deny
the legal position that regulated items of fruits and vegetables as
per the notification issued by the APMC could not be sold by
operating a market within the market area, except by persons who had
obtained a licence from the APMC. In that context, the Court
observed that, as far as the provisions of the APMC Act were
concerned, they had an overriding effect by virtue of Sec.63 thereof.
That there is no over-lapping or conflict in the respective spheres
of jurisdiction and the
powers conferred by the two Statutes, i.e. the APMC Act and the
Municipalities Act, even though they operate within the same area.
Therefore, the stand of the respondent Municipality that they were
not issuing licences but were only charging "fees" or
"penalty" under Section 118, for unauthorised occupation,
was held to be not tenable, since the provisions of the APMC Act
applied within the "market area" which included the land
owned by the Municipality. The Court also observed that as far as the
APMC and the Municipality were
concerned, there was no conflict in any of the provisions of the
Statutes governing either of them . Ultimately, the
Court restrained the Municipality from permitting
the unauthorised vendors of fruits and vegetables from selling on its
land the regulated items of fruits and vegetables after purchasing
them from the market yard or sub-market yard, without the requisite
licence for doing so from the APAMC.