JUDGMENT : This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner challenging the validity of Rule 56-A of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produces Market Rules, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as " the Rules of 1963") being ultra vires the Constitution of India and/or modification to the extent of laying down the mechanism and guideline for defining the minimum distance between two or more private sub market yards in the same geographical location. Prayer has also been made for declaring licence dated 11.07.2019 (Annex.11) issued to respondent No.5 to establish private sub-market yard within the vicinity of two kilometers from the said market yard of the petitioner and restraining the respondent to function and install sub market yard in the market area. Direction has also been sought to the State to provide some mechanism, guideline or rule so as to make the provisions of Section 5-A of the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market Acts, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1961) workable and to provide mechanism and criteria for providing distance between private sub market yard or sub market yard. 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has asserted that because of non-providing of any distance between the two sub market yards, the project of the private sub market yard for which a licence, which was issued to the petitioner, has been rendered uneconomical and financially unviable as the licence for other sub market yard has been issued to respondent No.5 within a vicinity of two kilometres without taking into consideration the population, agricultural produce and the vicinity etc. It has been asserted that under Section 5-A of the Act of 1961 licence was issued to the petitioner and the rules have been framed under the said statutory provisions. Section 5 of the Act of 1961 provides for declaration of a sub yard established by a private entity for which the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market (Establishment of Sub Market Yard) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1987") have been framed. Section 5 of the Act of 1961 provides for declaration of a sub yard established by a private entity for which the Rajasthan Agricultural Produce Market (Establishment of Sub Market Yard) Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1987") have been framed. Rules 3 & 4 of the Rules of 1987 would be relevant as Rule 3 of the Rules of 1987 provides for criteria of sub market yard, which comes under sub-rule (d) thereof as per which the distance between the principal market yard and sub market yard in the market yard of the market committee shall be normally twenty kilometres or more and Rule 4 of the Rules of 1987 provides for procedure for declaration of sub market yard. There is no distance, as such, provided for establishment of two sub market yards, nor has any criteria being laid down which needs to be taken care of especially keeping in view the private sub market yard where the economic viability and financial criteria has to be taken note of. Senior counsel thus contends that where there is no criteria laid down with regard to the minimum distance to be maintained between two sub market yards, the same being arbitrary cannot be sustained and deserves to be declared ultra vires of the Act of 1961. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly informed the Court that on merits the allotment of licence to respondent No.5 had been challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court wherein the aspect with regard to the distance between two sub market yards had also been pressed into service with reference to Section 5-A of the Act of 1961 and Rule 56-A of the Rules of 1963 and Rules 3 and 4 of the Rules of 1987, which challenge was rejected on the ground that there being no distance specified or provided to be maintained between two private sub market yards as per Rule 56-A of the Rules of 1963. The discretion would lie with the State Government while taking into consideration all the relevant factors, as there was no distance specified. Thus, there was no bar for issuance of licence for private sub market yard within a distance of two kilometres from the other sub market yard. The discretion would lie with the State Government while taking into consideration all the relevant factors, as there was no distance specified. Thus, there was no bar for issuance of licence for private sub market yard within a distance of two kilometres from the other sub market yard. Even as per Rule 3 of the Rules of 1987, the words used are 'should normally be 20 kms and more', which clearly depicts that there was no legislative intent or bar mandated with regard to maintaining distance between a sub market yard from the principal market yard or between the two sub market yards. The discretion was, therefore, with the Government, which having been exercised, there was no illegality. This judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 07.02.2022 (Annex.12) was challenged before a Division Bench of this Court, which was dismissed on 17.05.2022 (Annex.13) upholding the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. The petitioner challenged the said judgments before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition (C) No.11838/2022 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 26.07.2022 (Annex.14) by passing a speaking order upholding the judgments passed by this Court with a further observation that there is no distance provided for or mandated to be maintained between the two sub market yards. However, a reference was also made that the validity of the provisions which provide for no specific distance between the two sub market yards being not under challenge no interference in the order passed by the High Court was called for. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner in the light of these observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has asserted that the petitioner has now challenged the provisions, which leaves it open to the Government to fix a distance between the two sub market yards i.e. Rule 56-A of the Rules of 1963. The reason, which has been assigned by learned senior counsel for challenging the validity of the said Rule, is that the same is arbitrary as no criteria has been laid down, nor any guideline specified for determining the distance between the two sub market yards such as density of the population, geographical location, financial viability and commercial marketable utility. The reason, which has been assigned by learned senior counsel for challenging the validity of the said Rule, is that the same is arbitrary as no criteria has been laid down, nor any guideline specified for determining the distance between the two sub market yards such as density of the population, geographical location, financial viability and commercial marketable utility. The learned senior counsel when confronted has very fairly stated that the jurisdiction of the legislature and the State Government to make Rules under the Act of 1961 is not under challenge and Rule 56-A of the Rules of 1963 have been challenged merely on the ground of it being arbitrary and irrational. 4. Having considered the submissions made by learned senior counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any ground for accepting the challenge to Rule 56-A of the Rules of 1963 especially when the power of the State Government to legislate an Act as well as the Rules is not under challenge and rather the same has been conceded. 5. In various judgments as have been passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court starting from State of A.P & Ors. Vs. Mcdowell & Co. & Ors. [ (1996) 3 SCC 709 ], it has been held that a law made by the Parliament or the legislature can be struck down by courts on two grounds and two grounds alone viz (i) lack of legislative competence and (ii) violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision. There is no third ground. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of saying that the ground for invalidation must fall within the four corners of the two grounds mentioned above and no enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmities have to be found before invalidating an Act. The enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that the court thinks it to be unjustified as the Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the legislature. This judgment has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments. Reference can be made to the Public Services Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. [ (2003) 4 SCC 104 ], and Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. & Anr. This judgment has been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments. Reference can be made to the Public Services Tribunal Bar Association Vs. State of U.P. & Anr. [ (2003) 4 SCC 104 ], and Greater Bombay Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. United Yarn Tex (P) Ltd. & Anr. [ (2007) 6 SCC 236 ]. 6. In State of Bihar Vs. Bihar Distillery Ltd. [ (1997) 2 SCC 453 ], the Hon'ble Supreme Court spelt out the approach to be adopted by the Court while examining the validity/constitutionality of the legislation, where in para 17 at page 466 it has been held as follows: "The approach of the court, while examining the challenge to the constitutionality of an enactment, is to start with the presumption of constitutionality. The Court should try to sustain its validity to the extent possible. It should strike down the enactment only when it is not possible to sustain it. The court should not approach the enactment with a view to pick holes or to search for defects of drafting, much less inexactitude of language employed. Indeed, any such defects of drafting should be ironed out as part of the attempt to sustain the validity/constitutionality of the enactment. After all, an Act made by the legislature represents the will of the people and that cannot be lightly interfered with. The unconstitutionality must be plainly and clearly established before an enactment is declared as void. The same approach holds good while ascertaining the intent and purpose of an enactment or its scope and application." In the same para the Court further observed as follows: "The court must recognize the fundamental nature and importance of legislative process and accord due regard and deference to it, just as the legislature and the executive are expected to show due regard and deference to the judiciary. It cannot also be forgotten that our Constitution recognizes and gives effect to the concept of equality between the three wings of the State and the concept of ‘checks and balances' inherent in such scheme." 7. In the light of above, it is imperative for the courts while examining the scope of legislative action to start with the conscious presumption regarding the constitutional validity of the same. The burden of proof is upon the person, who challenges its validity depicting and demonstrating the transgression of the constitutional principles. In the light of above, it is imperative for the courts while examining the scope of legislative action to start with the conscious presumption regarding the constitutional validity of the same. The burden of proof is upon the person, who challenges its validity depicting and demonstrating the transgression of the constitutional principles. The court is required to and would be justified in giving liberal interpretation so as to avoid constitutional invalidity. Reading down the provisions can also be resorted to by the courts where-ever it becomes necessary to uphold the validity of the law. Meaning thereby, where the statue is silent, the court would attempt to transmutate the inarticulate part of the statute and adopt a construction, which would lean towards constitutionality. Defect in drafting should be ignored to sustain the validity of a constitutionality of the enactment provided the intent is clear which should be given effect to as the will of the legislature would be a guiding factor. 8. To sum up, it can be concluded that the challenge to statue and its validity is limited to the extent of two grounds as have been laid down in Mcdowell & Co. (supra). 9. Now testing the grounds on which the challenge has been posed to Rule 56-A of the Rules of 1963 i.e. it being arbitrary, irrational and unreasonable, the said grounds independently cannot survive as the statute which has been conceded to be legislated within the domain, power and jurisdiction of the State, there being no ground pressed, which would fall within the constitutional provisions having been violated, the challenge to the vires of the said Rule cannot be upheld. There appears to be an effort being made by the petitioner to strive to challenge the licence issued to respondent No.5, which is a second attempt with the first attempt having been failed, the challenge posed being based upon no valid or permissible ground to the vires of Rule 56-A of the Rules of 1963, the same cannot be accepted and thus must fail. 10. In the light of above, Rule 56-A of the Rules of 1963 is declared to be constitutionally valid. 11. The writ petition being devoid of merit, therefore, stands dismissed.