With Ramazan close to ending this week, the relief of affordable commodities has remained a far cry for lower-income groups. This was primarily due to structural issues in market dynamics that the government perhaps never factored in.

While market players argue their case with their usual, weak rationale, consumers go unrepresented; an average buyer from the middle- or lower-income groups ends up in losses, unable to even buy fruits during Ramazan thanks to the monopoly of market players.

A regulatory framework supposed to govern these areas follows a conventional approach, and thus, price fixation by administrations and market committees remains ever-present. Nobody at the government level delves into the dynamics of market committees where wholesale trading of vegetables and fruits takes place. Superficially, everything is left to commission agents and masha khors (middlemen) to handle.

It appeared to be a monopoly held by certain players within the mandi, a key cause of the problem that was never fixed. Prices were jacked up, artificially or otherwise, in the mandi. Its trickle-down effects were then seen in retail or roadside markets, burdening the average buyer.

Despite the presence of a market committee to oversee commodity price ceilings, market monopolies continue to negatively impact prices

Though administrative measures were taken to check prices, consumers’ cries about the prices of edibles, fruits and other items in Ramazan increased as they were left high and dry. No substantive change was seen in the whole exercise of price fixation by market committees.

The civil administration machinery focuses on price controls at the start of Ramazan to ensure that the prices it fixes are adhered to. Those violating the price list are met with heavy penalties, but such penalties hardly ever benefit consumers, and there is no permanent mechanism in place that could help consumers to seek recourse against profiteers.

Furthermore, price lists are issued separately. Grocery rates were fixed by a district-level committee headed by the deputy commissioner, whereas prices of vegetables and fruits were fixed by the market committee.

Representatives from the Sindh agriculture department’s bureau of supplies and prices were part of these mechanisms. Nominees of associations dealing in grocery, grains, meat, milk and pulses remained on board.

The Market Committee, set up under the Agricultural Produce Markets Act 1939, issues daily price lists for fruits and vegetables after the auction at the mandi. Arthi or commission agents, and masha khor, control the entire auction of fruits and veggies before they reach roadside markets or established bazaars, and finally, consumers across the city. These masha khors are considered to be middlemen.

Commission agents charge a certain percentage on the goods from suppliers — usually farmers. The middlemen add their percentage as income before selling them to retailers. The vendors blame market players for selling fruits at much higher rates.

Before the advent of Ramazan, prices clearly remained stable. A surge was seen on the first day of the sacred month, with market players attributing it to the demand-and-supply phenomenon. A demand for fruit certainly increases, but not to the extent that prices go beyond the reach of commoners. Supplies are also often commensurate with demand.

Consumers don’t buy this argument of market forces, considering the fact that there was no dearth in supplies of seasonal fruits. For instance, a fruit golarchi, a kind of watermelon, was to be sold at a retail price of Rs150 if it were quality number one as per the price list. It was sold for Rs250, although crops had been harvested and supplies had started to improve. The prices fell only when more than half of Ramazan has passed.

“A magistrate has to remain present in the market to see how this auction proceeding goes on and check the actual quantity of fruits arriving in the market,” said Waseem Ahmed Khaskheli, secretary of the market committee. He believed that the prices of fruits and vegetables were determined by commission agents and masha khors.

A farmers’ leader, Mahmood Nawaz Shah, pointed out that as an annual ritual, prices of commonly used fruits in Ramazan tend to increase, and it was linked with the demand and supply argument. He said farmers tried to increase production by delaying harvesting till Ramazan or cultivating early to harvest early (within possible limits) so that the crop could catch the higher Ramazan prices. “So if supply is planned to increase, then why is it always that prices increase. This phenomenon, therefore, needs to be analysed deeply to see whether it is only demand and supply at play that prices rise, or is it certain manoeuvring by market players to facilitate an increase in prices,” he contended.

Regulations remained weaker, if not nonexistent, across Sindh to oversee auction proceedings in mandis. Hoarding was not checked either. In many cases, market players hoard fruits. Foreseeing the arrival of the holy month, they buy and store seasonal fruits in large quantities when their supplies reach a peak in markets. They start supplying fruits when the time comes and earn a windfall profit.

Grocery item prices were presented to the DC-led committee, where officials of the Bureau of Supplies & Prices discussed the price trend after assessing rates across markets catering to the needs of affluent, middle, and lower-income groups. Retailers, however, dispute the grocery prices, arguing they were not in line with prevailing price trends. In Hyderabad, retailers buy wholesale products from Karachi on receipts.

“Officials want us to sell quality number two products at the rate of number one quality products, or get fined,” said a retailer dealing in gram flour, lentils and grains. Requesting anonymity, he contended that the receipt showed he had bought gram flour and pulses from Karachi, but visiting officials would only argue that the price list should be followed or face a heavy fine.

A gram flour producer in Hyderabad argued that first-tier quality produce involved an ex-mill cost of Rs8,500 per 37kg or Rs230 a kilo. Retailers would add overhead costs, including transportation and packing, which would increase the per-kilo cost for end users, understandably. “But the administration has fixed the retailers’ price of gram flour at Rs215 per kg, which is just impossible. Either retailer should stop selling it or be ready to pay a fine,” he explained.

What should otherwise have been a 12-month price regulatory mechanism remains an annual activity. Not beyond that.

Published in Dawn, The Business and Finance Weekly, March 16th, 2026