V. Praveen Kumar Fruit Co. and Others vs The Hyderabad Agricultural Market Committee and Another

P.S. Mishra, C.J.—Heard.

Writ Petitioners - appellants'' applications before the Market Committee under the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 for licence to function as Commission Agents have been rejected. They have moved this Court seeking for a direction to the Market Committee to grant licence to them. After taking notice of Rules 66 and 67 framed u/s 33 of the Act, learned single Judge has opined that unless a Commission Agent has facilities he cannot function and perform the duties as envisaged under the Act and the Rules and since he has found that the appellants did not provide all the required facilities, if the Market Committee declined to grant licence to them, it committed no error of law or caused any legal injury to the writ petitioners - appellants. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners - appellants, however, has drawn our attention to Section 32 of the Act, which provides inter alia as follows:

"Power of the Government to regulate or prohibit Commission Agents:-

Where, in the opinion of the Government, it is considered necessary so to do, they may, by notification, regulate or prohibit the commission agents operating in the market:

Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the market committee from issuing licences to commission agents operating in the market until the issue of notification under this section."

and contended that unless prohibited by a notification issued by the Government in this behalf the Market Committee cannot refuse the licence, as refusal of licence in such a situation will infringe the writ petitioners -appellants'' right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and as a number of commission agents are permitted who are similarly situated, there is an obvious discrimination when the writ petitioners - appellants'' applications are refused for licence to function as Commission Agents and Article 14 of the Constitution of India is violated.

The above contention, however, on the facts of this case, has rightly been rejected by the learned single Judge. We do not find any force in the above contentions.

The right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution is always subject to the laws and such restrictions / regulations which are necessary for any trade, commerce or business. The Rules aforementioned permit granting of licence to a Commission Agent, provided he is able to arrange for the storage of the notified commodities and its insurance against theft, fire, floods, rains or any other natural calamity. Learned counsel for the appellants has obviously mistaken the proviso for benefitting the Commission Agents. The proviso is introduced to the above conditions under Rule 67 aforementioned only for the benefit of the seller and when facilities are not available with any Commission Agent and the seller is not going to any Commission Agent but is directly coming to trade in the market area, the Committee is required to provide for the same very facilities which Commission Agents are required to provide before they are granted licence. It appears to us a misconceived contention that unless prohibited by the Government the Committee has the . obligation to grant licence, whether conditions under Rule 67 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules are fulfilled or not. It is obvious from the scheme of the Act and the Rules that licence to function as a Commission Agent is not granted to any person as of right. It is only when he provides for the items aforementioned in Rule 67 that he qualifies for a licence. Since the writ petitioners - appellants have not obviously arranged for the above, they have not fulfilled the conditions and thus have not made themselves eligible for a licence.

It is not all kind of discrimination which is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. For anything being found violative of equal protection of law and equality before law, it must be shown that discrimination is hostile to the interest of the person who is complaining of discrimination which is legal and is granted to him under any law or preserved as a right under Part-Ill of the Constitution of India or any other provision of the Constitution of India. In the case of writ petitioners - appellants, we have already noticed, such hostile discrimination is not available. It is not possible in this case, in our view, to hold that the right of the writ petitioners - appellants under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution has been infringed or that they have been subjected to a hostile discrimination by the act of the licensing authority.

There is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.