MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN GULAM MOHAMMADAND ANOTHER vs THE STATE OF BOMBAY AND ANOTHER

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Sections 4, 4A, 5, 5A, and 5AA of the Bombay Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, affirming that they do not impose unreasonable restrictions on the right to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. The Court ruled that the fee under Section 11 is valid as it is a levy for services rendered, not a sales tax. However, it invalidated Rule 53 for allowing the market committee to fix fees without state-imposed maxima, while confirming that Section 29's provisions for amending the agricultural produce schedule are intra vires.