AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
AI Structured Summary
Facts, law points, precedents, ratio and the final ruling — distilled from the full judgment
Facts
This writ petition was filed under section 12(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. The petitioners contended that the Agricultural Market Committee improperly collected market fees from sellers, despite the statute clearly stating that such fees should be collected from purchasers. The petitioners argued that the collection from sellers only applies when the purchasers cannot be identified, which is not the case here.
Law Points
['Whether the Agricultural Market Committee is allowed to collect market fees from sellers instead of purchasers.', 'Interpretation of section 12(2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966.', "The applicability of the proviso in cases where the purchaser's identity is not ascertainable."]
Acts & Articles
['Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 - Section 12(2)']
Judgments Referred
None
Obiter Dicta
The court emphasized the need for a harmonious interpretation of the statute to ensure the safeguards for sellers are not rendered meaningless. The court also noted that the commission agent has a defined responsibility to collect market fees from purchasers, and this structure was put in place to protect all parties involved.
Ratio Decidendi
The court established that the Agricultural Market Committee must collect market fees from buyers, and sellers are not liable for these fees if the purchaser is identifiable. The exception allowing fee collection from sellers applies only when purchasers cannot be identified.
Final Ruling
The writ petition was disposed of in favor of the petitioners, directing that the Agricultural Market Committee should seek the market fees from the commission agent and not the petitioners. Costs were fixed for the Standing Counsel of the Committee, to be paid by the Committee within two months.
Plain-Language Gist
The dispute centered around the improper collection of market fees from sellers rather than purchasers, contrary to the provisions of the Agricultural Markets Act. The court ruled that the fees should be collected from purchasers, affirming the sellers' rights under the statute.
AI-generated summary — verify against the full judgment text before relying on it in practice.
Judgment
B. Subhashan Reddy, J.—This writ petition has been filed seeking relief u/s 12(2) of Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce & Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. The complaint of Mr. Gangaiah Naidu, the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the statute imposes a duty on the Market Committee to collect the market fees from the purchaser, but contrary to the same, the market fees is being collected from the seller. Section 12(2) reads :
"(2) The fees referred to in sub-section (1) shall be paid by the purchaser of the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock;"
There is a proviso added to this which reads :
"Provided that where the purchaser cannot be identified, the fees shall be paid by the seller."
As such, the intendment of the Act is so clear that at the first instance, the purchasers shall be made to pay the market fees and if the purchaser is identifiable, there cannot be any exception to the said liability of payment of market fees by the purchaser and in that event, the Market Committee is prohibited from collecting the market fees from the seller. The proviso can be set in action only in exceptional cases where the purchasers'' identity cannot be made out and the said proviso is inapplicable in cases where the commodity is sold through the media of commission agent, as it is so evident from Clause 6 of the Licence, which obligates the commission agent first to collect the market fees payable from the purchaser and then only deliver the goods to the purchaser and immediately, he has to make-over that market fees to the agricultural Market Committee. That being so, by placing harmonious construction and reading down the proviso as an exception to the sale without the media of the commission agent, the net result is that in cases where the sales are effected through the media of the commission agent, it is the obligation of the commission agent to collect the market fees from the purchaser and the seller cannot be made liable to pay the market fees at all. But, in cases where the sellers sell without the media of the commission agent and in cases they do not collect the market fees from the purchasers and the purchasers disappear and cannot be identified, then only the sellers can be made liable invoking the proviso mentioned supra. This is the only construction which we can place having regard to the intendment and object of the Act and any other interpretation would make the safeguard to the seller, which is so much guaranteed under sub-section (2) of Section 12, redundant. In order to see that the proviso does not become redundant, the above interpretation is made, as the Agricultural Market Committee should not also suffer if the seller sells it directly without the intervention of the commission agent and sells the same without taking sufficient safeguard or guidance to identify the purchaser and not collecting the market fees from the purchaser. This interpretation is fortified by bye-law framed by the Market Committee viz., the 1st respondent and relevant bye-law is Clauses 25(1) and (2) which read:
"25. Procedure for the payment of fees to Market Committee: (1) The incidence of Market fees shall be on the purchaser.
(2) The payment of Market Fees to the Market Committee shall be the responsibility of the Commission agents, where the purchase or sale is effected through a Commission Agent in the Market.
(a) The Market fees will be assessed and demanded on the basis of Takpatties or sale slips as specified by the Committee.
(b) The Commission Agent shall submit a copy of the takpatty in the office of the Market Committee by 4 p.m. of the next day failing which a late fee (tawan) of 10 paise/patti per day shall be charged subject to maximum of three days. If the patties are not submitted within three days he shall not be entitled to operate in the Market without the permission of the Secretary. The Secretary on application of the Commission Agent, may allow three more days for submission of the takpatties without charging late fee with the approval of Chairman. If the takpatties are not submitted within 3 days of the period so extended, the licence of the concerned Commission agent shall be suspended and he will not be entitled to operate in the Market without getting licence renewed by the Market Committee.
(c) The Commission Agent shall remit the Market fees collected from the purchaser in the Market Committee office every fortnight. The market fees for the first fortnight shall be paid by the 25th of the month and for the second fortnight, by the 10th of the following month. After the expiry of these dates a late fee at 0.02 ps. per rupee per day-shall be charged. If the market fees together with late fees is not paid even after 15 days from the due dates mentioned above, the licence of the concerned commission agent shall be suspended. The Chairman or the Secretary may at his discretion order for refund of late fee. Any representation for refund of late fee by a trader shall only be considered after the payment of market fees and late fees in full.
(d) If any short payment or over payment is reported or detected either in case of a seller or a purchaser, such amounts of under payments or over payments shall be recovered by the Market Committee from the concerned and be kept as deposit with the Market Committee. The Market Committee shall arrange for the payment of the amount held in deposit to the seller or purchaser in presence of the concerned Commission Agent at the earliest."
In the instant case, as the 2nd respondent is the commission agent through whose media, the commodity has been sold, the 1st respondent shall look to the 2nd respondent for the said market fees and not to the petitioners who are said to be the growers.
The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. The fees of Ms. Nanda Ramachander Rao, Standing Counsel for the Agricultural Market Committee is fixed at Rs. 1200/- payable by the 1st respondent within two months from the date of the presentation of the bill by her.