AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.S.R. Verma, J. 1. At the interlocutory stage, both the parties consented for final adjudication of the matter.
Initially the writ petition is filed seeking declaration that the action of the first respondent in establishing Ryothu Bazaars within the Hyderabad Market Committee area as illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966, and for further declaration that the establishment of Ryot Bazaars is without jurisdiction and as ultra-vires. The said writ petition was filed on 9-2-1999.
The contentions in the said writ petition are that after following the procedure-prescribed under various provision final notification has to be issued and after such notification the Government has to constitute a Market Committee for the notified area declared u/s 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter called the ''Act'' for brevity). It is further contended that Section 7 of the Act prescribes that if a person wants to set up or establish or use or continue or allowed to be continued any place for the purchase, sale, storage, weighment, curing, dressing or processing of any notified agricultural produce or products of livestock, or for purchase or sale of livestock is bound to take a licence in respect of such place. Under this section power is also conferred to exempt from taking such licence, it also provides for withdrawal of such exemption in certain cases. Further, it is stated that such licensee shall comply with the provisions of the Act, Rules, Bye-laws and the conditions specified in the licence.
The important submission is that Section 7(6) of the Act contemplates that no person shall purchase or sell any notified agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock in a notified market area, outside the market in that area and that the Act has been enacted mainly in the interest of growers-sellers to enable them to get a reasonable price for their produce. The Commission Agent is under obligation to provide certain facilities for the grower-seller in the market yard. The Commission Agent further collects market fee from the purchaser and remits the same to the Market Committee, and therefore, Commission Agents are doing service both to the grower-seller and the Market Committee. It is contended that while so, the first respondent ignoring the existence of the1 Act started establishing Ryot Bazaars, as a result the fanners viz., grower-sellers themselves can sell their agricultural produce directly to the purchasers. Under these circumstances, the petitioner-Association raised the following questions:
"(1) Whether the constitution of Ryothu Bazaars are traceable to any provisions of law?
(2) Whether the Ryot Bazaars are being run parallel to Market yards without any authority of law and there is a conflict between the Revenue Department and Market Committee in this regard?
Subsequently, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued G.O.Ms.No.37, Agriculture and Co-operation (Marketing-I), dated 14-2-1999, which reads as follows:
"In exercise of the powers conferred u/s 35 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (Act 16 of 1966) the Governor of Andhra Pradesh hereby exempt the persons selling notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock grown, reared or produced by them to persons for their own domestic consumption or purchasing such agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock for their own domestic consumption from the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 7 and sub-section (1) of the Section 12 of the said Act with immediate effect."
Having come to know of the fact of issuance of the said Government Order, the writ petitioner filed two MPs-WPMP (SR) No.28037 of 1999 to amend the prayer in the writ petition to the following effect:
"For the reasons stated in the accompany affidavit, it is prayed that this Hon''ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus declaring the impugned G.O. Ms. No.37, Agriculture and Co-operation dated 14-2-1999, issued by the third respondent, as illegal, improper and contrary to Section 35 of the Andhra Pradesh Markets Act and further declare that the establishment of Ryothu Bazaars within the Hyderabad Agricultural Market area, is illegal, improper, unjust and contrary to law and also without jurisdiction and lack of power and pass such other order or orders as this Hon''ble Court may deem fit and proper."
WPMP No.6873 of 1999 is filed seeking to implead the Principal Secretary to Government, Agriculture and Co-operation Department as third respondent in the writ petition. Both the WPMPs were ordered on 11-6-1999.
In the affidavit filed in support of WPMP (SR) No.28037 of 1999, the issuance of G.O. Ms. No.37, dated 14-2-1999 was questioned mainly on two grounds, firstly, the said Government Order, did not specify any reasons whatsoever for granting exemption to Section 7(6) and Section 12(1) of the Act; and secondly, such exemption was given for extraneous reasons, and hence, does not stand for legal scrutiny. According to the petitioner such an amendment was necessitated in view of the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents in the main writ petition.
In fact, a perusal of the said Government Order, shows that there were no reasons given. It appears, subsequently the Government has issued the same Government Order and gazette on 11-4-1999 wherein some reasons were given. In this regard, the learned Additional Advocate-General submits that initially only the operative portion of the Government Order, was notified on 14-2-1999, but the same has been notified again as an abundant caution giving out reasons on 11-4-1999. Therefore, he submits that for all practical purposes, the G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 11-4-1999 can be treated as the Government Order, since the operative portion is the same as Government Order, dated 14-2-1999 and also since there is no change in the number of the Government Order. The learned Counsel for the petitioner does not seriously contest G.O. Ms. No.37, dated 11-4-1999 and submits that the same can be treated as the impugned notification. Therefore it is not necessary to go into the question of validity or otherwise of G.O.Ms.No.37 dated 14-2-1999.
Therefore in view of the changed circumstances viz., issuance of G.O. Ms. No.37, dated 11-4-1999 subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the question that has to be decided is whether the whether the G.O. Ms. No.37, dated 11-4-1999 is valid or not?
The learned Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of the Court to various provisions of the Act in connection with constitution of Market Yards, objects of their constitution and the procedure regarding transaction of business. It is relevant to read Section 7(6) of the Act which is as follows:
"7(6) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1), no person shall purchase or sell any notified agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock in a notified market area, outside the market in that area."
The said provision shows that it prohibits purchase or sale of any notified agricultural produce in a notified market area, outside the market. Therefore, the petitioner contends that the purchase or sale of the notified agricultural produce under the Act is not permissible outside the market in that area. In other words, it means that the transaction between the grower-seller and the purchaser-consumer with regard to agricultural produce, livestock and products of livestock shall be made only in the notified market area.
Attention is also drawn to Section 12(1) of the Act, which reads as follows:
"Section 12: Levy of Fees By The Market Committee :--The market committee shall levy fees on any notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock purchased or sold in he notified market area (at such rate, not exceeding (two rupees) as may be specified in the bye-laws) for every hundred rupees of the aggregate amount for which the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock is purchased or sold whether for cash or deferred payment or other valid consideration."
.......................
The above provision empowers the market committee to levy prescribed fee on any notified agricultural produce or livestock if purchased or sold in the market area.
A conjoint reading of these two provisions shows that notified agricultural produce or products of livestock shall be sold or purchased only in the market area notified and the market committee is authorised to levy fees on such transactions.
The petitioner states in his affidavit filed in support of the amendment petition in WPMP (SR) No.28037 of 1999 that the Government can exercise such power u/s 35 of the Act by notification either permanently or for any specific period, exempt any market committee, any person, or class of persons from all or any other provisions by specifying the reasons. The Government may also impose such other conditions as it deems fit.
The petitioner contends that such a Government Order, which was issued invoking the provisions u/s 35 of the Act is illegal for two reasons. Firstly, the, Government Order, did not specify any reason whatsoever for granting exemption which is mandatory requirement u/s 35 of the Act, and secondly, the exemption was given for extraneous reasons.
As already indicated earlier, these averments were made in the affidavit filed in support of WPMP (SR) No.28037 of 1999 filed seeking amendment of the prayer in the writ petition in view of the changed circumstances viz., issuance of G.O. Ms. No.37, dated 14-2-1999 (which was subsequently notified with reasons on 11-4-1999). Therefore, the petitioner has raised the objection that though it is mandatory u/s 35 of the Act, no reasons were given.
Now, in the G.O. Ms. No.37, dated 11-4-1999 three reasons were given viz., firstly, farmers are not getting remunerative price for their produce and on the other there has been a steep increase in the prices of Agricultural commodities causing great hardship to consumers particularly from poorer sections; secondly, there are a series of intermediaries in the process; and thirdly, a direct interface between the producer-farmer and consumer wilt be of benefit to both the sections.
Section 35 of the Act reads as follows:
"35. Exemption :--The Government may, by notification, and for the reasons to be specified therein, either permanently or for any specified period, exempt any market committee, any person or class of persons from all or any of the provisions of this Act, subject to such conditions as the Government may deem fit to impose."
Now a perusal of G.O.Ms.No.37 shows that it was issued by the Government exercising the power conferred u/s 35 of the Act by giving exemption to Sections 7(6) and 12(1) of the Act and as a result, business transaction between the seller-grower and purchaser-consumer was possibilities outside the periphery of notified market yard which hither to was prohibited. From the language used in the Government Order, it can be seen that not only the public interest is explicit but also the reasons given in my view are reasonable and adequate.
When some defects were noticed by the State or the Statutory provision is noticeably causing prejudice to the public interest, the Government must come forward with remedial measures and the object of the impugned Government Order, is quite apparent from the reasons therein and such authority of the Government is traceable u/s 35. The original intention of the Legislation is to regulate the system of marketing Agricultural products and livestock in the interest of farmer-grower and purchaser-consumer. Permitting the intermediaries to play a role was also a part of that scheme. When it is found by the State that such system has been in operation to the detriment of both grower-seller and purchaser-consumer equally, promptness is required by the State which is the key-note of the power of the State. If quick action is not taken, many undesirable things may take place and needless to say that the State had responded in right manner in right time tracing its authority under right provision i.e., Section 35 of the Act. The maladies identified in the impugned Government Order have already been in the public notice since long and was taken note of by the State at the chronic stage of course, before collapse.
When once the Legislature gives power to the Government u/s 35 of the Act, the consequential actions of the Executive are discretionary. It is such discretion which obviously caused the constitution of the market areas may be at the behest of the Government functionaries, which are identified as Ryothu Bazaars. It is only by virtue of exemption u/s 35 market areas were created and christended as Ryothu Bazaars. Therefore Ryothu Bazaars are conceptual in nature. In fact u/s 28 of the Act, the Government also can undertake the activities of purchasing or selling of Agricultural products and products of livestock. Of course that provision was not in question in this writ petition. The comprehensive effect is that the Government can undertake all such activities covered by the Act on it''s own or take such necessary steps exercising jurisdiction u/s 35 of the Act.
By allowing such market areas called as Ryothu Bazaars the intention of the Government appears certainly not to preponderate over the existing conditions, but only to standardise the present conditions eliminating the scope of immoral restrains of trade or monopoly, Not abolishing the present system under the Act itself indicates that there is no total deviation from the object and the scheme of the Act. Such an action on the part of the Government may amount to change in the policy of the State which again cannot be questioned unless and until the same is found either arbitrary or unreasonably and either of these elements in my view are not present in the light of the reasons given in the impugned Government Order.
Therefore, Section 35 of the Act gives ample power to the Government to grant exemption to any person or class of persons from all or any of the provisions of the Act for a variety of reasons, and in my view, the reasons accorded by the Government in the impugned Government Order, are perceptibly sufficient and valid. Hence, the petitioner fails on his first contention viz., no valid reasons were given in the impugned Government Order.
Coming to the next contention viz., exemption was given for extraneous reasons, the petitioner could not place any material before this Court to substantiate his contention. The intention and the object of the Government in giving exemption is very clear from the reasons given in the impugned G.O. Therefore, I do not accept the contention of the petitioner that the exemption was given for extraneous reasons. It is further clear from the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Amendment petition that the petitioner is not questioning the competence of the Government u/s 35 of the Act. It is submitted by the learned Additional Advocate-General that when compared to the notified Market Yards, the Ryothu Bazaars are very few in number and that the Government Order, was issued in the public interest simultaneously preserving the object of the Act and as such it cannot be said that the impugned G.O. Ms. No.37, dated 11-4-1999 is neither unreasonable nor extraneously reasoned.
Therefore viewed from any angle the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.