ORAL JUDGMENT A. H. JOSHI, J.: - The petitioner is the Agricultural Produce Market Committee of Nagpur, constituted within the meaning of section 2(j) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Market (Regulation) Act, 1963 (hereinafter, referred for brevity as the said Act). The Market Committee is a local authority and is constituted by the enactment and is vested with statutory powers and functions. The petitioner has challenged the orders passed by respondent No.3 on 244-1992, by which he has de-notified from regulation the splits of Pulses (Dal). 2. The facts as narrated by the petitioner in the petition, in oral submission and then by filing written submissions can be summarized as follows: (a) APMC, Nagpur formulated a proposal under section 2 read with section 62 of the Act and Schedule thereto, and submitted it to the respondent No.3 requesting for issuing an order under section 4 of the Act for including the Split of Pulses (Dal) as agricultural produce for regulation of its trade in the area of the petitioner. (b) The respor.dent No.3 issued preliminary notification dated 23-4-1990 which was published in Maharashtra Gazette on 21-6-1990. (c) Any suggestions or objections to the preliminary notification were not received and the respondent No.3 has in exercise of the powers delegated to him under section 4 of the Act, notified on 30-8-1990 the splits of pulses as item of agricultural produce to be regulated within the market area of the petitioner market committee. The said notification dated 30-8-1990 regulating Splits and Pulses in due course was published in the Government Official Gazette on 31-1-1991. (d) The regulation of splits of pulses was inconvenient to the traders in splits of pulses. Those traders, therefore, represented to the respondent No. I and asked for de-notifying the Splits of Pulses. Minister for Co-operation was pleased to hear the traders. (e) The respondent No.1 communicated its decision to stay the effect and operation of the final notification, till further steps are taken in the matter. (f) The respondent No. 1 had also instructed the respondent No. 2 to enquire into the matter and submit his report on the proposal of the traders to delete the splits of pulses from the agricultural produces to be regulated by APMC, Nagpur. (f) The respondent No. 1 had also instructed the respondent No. 2 to enquire into the matter and submit his report on the proposal of the traders to delete the splits of pulses from the agricultural produces to be regulated by APMC, Nagpur. (g) The matter was heard by the respondent No.2 who submitted his report to respondent No. 1 in which he observed that it was not advisable that split of pulses be exempted from regulation by the APMC, Nagpur. He observed that the discriminative application of regulation limiting to Bombay Will frustrate the purpose of integrated market structure and the smooth and orderly regulation of the commodities in the State. (h) Despite the said report at Annexure-B, the respondent No. 1 took a decision that splits of pulses should not be subject to regulation in any market area except the market area of Bombay APMC. (I) The Government then took opinion of Law and Judiciary Department and issued final order, and respective DDRS were directed to take further necessary action i.e. especially for de-notification of notified commodities of this nature. j) Pursuant to the aforesaid communication, the respondent No. 3 vide impugned notification de-notified the splits of pulses, exempting it from regulation within the area of the petitioner-committee. 3. The petition is opposed by the State Government by filing affidavit-in-reply. It has been admitted that certain products, which are manufactured after processing of agricultural produce, are included in the Schedule to the Act, and also that the District Dy. Registrar of various Districts, in exercise of powers of the State Government vested in them, had notified certain processed commodities manufactured from agricultural produce within the compass of regulation. It is then averred that aggrieved by said Notification, representations were received by the Government, and that the State Government then considered the whole matter carefully, and decided that "regulation of processed commodities should not be done under the Act except at Bombay". It is further stated that the State Government, which has powers under section 66 of the Act for removing the difficulties in implementation of the provisions of the Act, and with a view to keep the market system in the State undisturbed and unhampered, decided to exclude these processed commodities from regulation. The respondents have denied that the decision is arbitrary or otherwise bad. 4. The respondents have denied that the decision is arbitrary or otherwise bad. 4. The added respondent - respondent NO.4 has filed the detailed affidavit, and placed on record the correspondence as to how the effort was being made to include the pulses and certain commodities in the regulated agricultural produce for over a long duration in past. They have not objected to the processed commodities being put into the list of agricultural produce by including them in the Schedule as an enabling provision, however, have objected to the need of the splits of pulses being required to be regulated under the said Act. Respondent No. 4 has also denied the factum of due publication of the primary notification dated 3-4-1990 in local news papers, and being made known to the persons affected, and narrated as to how they had made out before the Government a case for de-notification. Respondent NO.4 has further tried to justify that the regulation of pulses did not result in safeguarding the cause of agriculturists and the producers, and that even otherwise it is not necessary, and urged that the agricultural produce, which was once subjected to levy of market fees, and used for conversion into pulses, could not be subjected to further levy of market fees after conversion into pulses, and that, therefore, such regulation was of no purpose. 5. The learned Advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on various Judgments namely: (1) AIR 1962 SC 97 , Mohammad Hussain Gulam Mohammad and another VS. The State of Bombay and another (2) (1981)2 SCC 722 , Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal and others VS. State of Maharashtra and others (3) 2006(5) Mh.L.J. 789 , IVP Ltd. and another VS. Mumbai Agricutural Produce Market Committee and others. (4) 2006(5) Mh.L.J. 267, Britannia Industries VS. Bombay A.P.M.c. (5) (2000)4 SCC 57 , Daiichi Karkaria Ltd. VS. Union of India and others. 6. The reliance on the judgments quoted at Sr. Nos. 1 to 4 above is placed in order to urge that the processed agricultural commodities continues to be within the bracket of agricultural produce', and that the regulation is competent and such regulation is to be done not only in the interest of the agriculturists, but all concerned including the traders, and that the object underlying the regulation is far wider than what is expected by the respondent No.4. 7. 7. The judgment in the case of Dai-chi Karkaria Ltd., VS. Union of India (supra) Item No. 5 above is relied upon to urge that while ordering de-notification, public interest ought to have been achieved, which according to the petitioner has not happened in present case. 8. Based on these submissions and mainly urging that the process of decision making was not in the public interest, and that the principles of natural justice were not followed in the process, the impugned decision deserves to be quashed. It is not necessary to deal with each of the judgments referred to by the petitioner. 9. The learned Advocate for the respondent No.4 placed reliance on the following Judgments. (1) AIR 1984 SC 1870 , Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Kanpur etc. vs. M/s Ganga Dal Mill and Co. (2) 1978 Mh.L.J. 838, Solapur B. K. Asso. vs. Solapur Agri. P. M. Com. (3) 1998(3) Mh.L.J. 577 , lalandar layaram Patil vs. Collector, Thane and others (4) 1980 (Supp) SCC 27, Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar and Company vs. State of U. P. (5) AIR 1985 Bombay 160, Chaware Oil Industries, Karanja and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others. Respondent No. 4 wants to rely on these Judgments to urge that once market fee was levied on primary agricultural produce, double charge of market fee on the processed agricultural produce i.e. Splits of Pulses i.e. Oal cannot be done. It is not necessary to deal with each of the judgments referred to by the petitioner. 10. In the aforesaid background, the only question that falls for consideration of this Court is as follows: Whether the impugned de-notification of Splits of Pulses (Oal) from regulation suffers from any illegality? 11. While considering the question noted above, this Court has to find out what is the nature of power exercised by the authority. 12. The nature of power to issue notification to include an agricultural produce into a schedule under section 62, and the power to remove the difficulties under section 66 and the powers to regulate which includes the notification and de-notification under section 4 needs to be examined and perceived. 13. Perusal of relevant provisions of the Act, which do vest in the State Government the powers of regulation, is necessary for a quicker reference. Relevant sections are quoted below: "4. 13. Perusal of relevant provisions of the Act, which do vest in the State Government the powers of regulation, is necessary for a quicker reference. Relevant sections are quoted below: "4. Declaration of regulation of marketing of specified agricultural produce in market area.- (1) On the expiry of the period specified in the notification issued under section 3, the State Government shall consider the objections and suggestions, if any, received before the expiry of such period and may, if it considers necessary, hold an inquiry in the manner prescribed. Thereafter, the State Government may, by another notification in the Official Gazette, declare that the marketing of the agricultural produce specified in the notification shall be regulated under this Act, in the area specified in the notification. The area so specified shall be the market area. A notification under this section may also be published in (a newspaper in the Marathi language) circulating therein, and shall also be published in such other manner as in the opinion of the State Government is best calculated to bring to the notice of persons in the area the declaration aforesaid. (2) On any declaration being made under sub-section (1) no local authority (or any other person) shall thereafter, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, establish, authorise or continue or allow to be established, authorised or continued any place in the market area for the marketing of that agricultural produce. (3) Subject to the provision of section 3, the State Government may, at any time by notification in the Official Gazette, exclude from a market area any area, or include therein an additional area, or may direct that the regulation of the marketing of any agricultural produce in any market area shall cease, or that the marketing of any agricultural produce hitherto not regulated shall be regulated in the market area. (4) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette declare in addition to the existing market, a special commodity market for any market area after considering the turnover and special infrastructure requirements for marketing of a particular agricultural produce. 62. Powers of State Government to amend Schedule.- The State Government may, after consulting the Market Committee concerned by notification in the Official Gazette, add to, amend or cancel any of the items of agricultural produce specified in the Schedule. 66. 62. Powers of State Government to amend Schedule.- The State Government may, after consulting the Market Committee concerned by notification in the Official Gazette, add to, amend or cancel any of the items of agricultural produce specified in the Schedule. 66. Removal of Difficulties.- If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the State Government may as occasion requires, by order do anything which appears to it, to be necessary for the purpose of removing the difficulty." 14. On bare perusal of the provisions quoted above, the nature of powers vested in the State and in the committee is found, undoubtedly, to be a legislative function, derived under the statute and in the form of delegated legislation. 15. Considering the scheme of sections quoted in para 13, it is seen that while introducing the regulation by notification under sub-section (1) of section 4, the pre-publication of notification, calling the objections, and enquiry, if any, prescribed under rules is required. 16. It appears to this Court that while an unregulated agricultural produce is required to be brought into the fold of regulation, a large number of persons are likely to get affected and for that purpose, the provision for due publicity is aimed at, and hence, notice to interested persons is prescribed under sub-section (1). Even an enquiry, if any, prescribed (naturally under the rules) is recommended. The Scheme of rules 3 and 4 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce (Marketing) Regulation Rules, 1967 is, thus, for advancing the object referred to in this para for taking into account the point of view of those who would be affected, if an agricultural produce is to be brought within the compass of regulation. 17. In contrast of sub-sections (1) and (2), sub-section (3) of section 4 provides for powers to de-regulate, however, any procedure of pre-publication and enquiry is not prescribed. 18. The mode of publication referred in Rule 3 also refers "regulation" and not de-regulation. The procedure of enquiry referred to in Rule 4 also implies to regulating and not de-regulating. 19. 17. In contrast of sub-sections (1) and (2), sub-section (3) of section 4 provides for powers to de-regulate, however, any procedure of pre-publication and enquiry is not prescribed. 18. The mode of publication referred in Rule 3 also refers "regulation" and not de-regulation. The procedure of enquiry referred to in Rule 4 also implies to regulating and not de-regulating. 19. On facts, as we find either the Committee or the State Government have not brought on record any material to show that while the notification Annexure-A to the petition regulating the split of pulses (Dal) was issued, the procedure of publication in newspaper and in other modes, as prescribed under Rules 3 and 4 and sub-sections (I) and (2) of section 4, was followed. 20. The petitioner-Committee, on the other hand, has placed on record material which shows that in the process of notification the said procedure of enquiry and hearing was followed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the report favourable to the petitioner was furnished by the respondent No.2. 21. We find that an enquiry and hearing at the time of de-notification, which is within the contemplation of the petitioner, in our view, was not required under statute or sub-section (3) of section 4 of the Act, or even otherwise. 22. Even otherwise, insofar as the question as to whether the State Government should have heard the petitioner before issuing its opinion as well by the respondent No.3 before issuing the impugned notification is concerned, the same will have to be answered in the negative in the light of the dictum of Apex Court as found in (1981)2 SCC 722 , Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal and others vs. State of Maharashtra and others at Sr. No. 2 relied upon by petitioner as quoted in para 5 above. In this Judgment relied upon by the petitioner itself, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows: "17..... It was said that even as there was express provision for inviting and hearing objections before a "market area" was declared under the Act, so should objections be invited and heard before a 'market yard' was established at any particular place. The principles of natural justice demanded it. We are unable to agree. It was said that even as there was express provision for inviting and hearing objections before a "market area" was declared under the Act, so should objections be invited and heard before a 'market yard' was established at any particular place. The principles of natural justice demanded it. We are unable to agree. We are here not concerned with the exercise of a judicial or quasi-judicial function where the very nature of the function involves the application of the rules of natural justice, or of an administrative function affecting the rights of persons, wherefore, a duty to act fairly. We are concerned with legislative activity; we are concerned with the making a legislative instrument, the declaration by notification of the Government that a certain place shall be a principal market yard for a market area, upon which declaration certain statutory provisions at once spring into action and certain consequences prescribed by statute follow forthwith. The making of the declaration, in the context, is certainly an act legislative in character and does not oblige the observance of the rules of natural justice. In Bates vs. Lord Halsham, Megarry, J., pointed out that the rules of natural justice do not run in the sphere of legislation, primary or delegated, and in Tulsipur Sugar Co. vs. Notified Area Committee, our brothers Desai and Venkataramiah, JJ. approve what was said by Megarry, J., and applied it to the field of conditional legislation too. In Paul Jackson's Natural Justice (2nd Edn.), it has been pointed out (at p. 169): There is no doubt that a minister, or any other body, in making legislation for example, by statutory instrument or by law, is not subject to the rules of natural justice Bnates vs. Lord Hailshanl of St./ Marrlebons- any more than is Parliament itself; Edinburgh and Dalkeith RY. vs. Wauchope per Lord Brougham; British Railways Board vs. Pickin. Prof. H. W. R. Wades has similarly pointed out in his ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (4th Edn.): "There is no right to be heard before the making of legislation, whether primary or delegated, unless it is provided by statutes." There is, therefore, no substance in the invocation of the rules of natural justice." 23. Prof. H. W. R. Wades has similarly pointed out in his ADMINISTRATIVE LAW (4th Edn.): "There is no right to be heard before the making of legislation, whether primary or delegated, unless it is provided by statutes." There is, therefore, no substance in the invocation of the rules of natural justice." 23. Though the above quoted portion from Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal's case refers to the act of the said declaration of the market area, the said dictum has direct application to the present case since the regulating agricultural produce is as much a legislative function as much a declaration of market area are conferred on the State by a statute and are in the nature of legislative function. 24. The dictum quoted in Para 21 above alone is a complete reply to the question agitated by the petitioner, however, in order to have the entire issue involved in the petition duly addressed and understood, this Court had to refer to the rival pleadings and points urged. 25. In view of what this Court has found from the dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rameshclzandra Porwal's case (supra), we conclude that the challenge has to fail, and it fails. 26. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.