SREENIVASA GENERAL TRADERS UPPALAPEDA VENKATARAMIAH COROMANDAL AGRO PRODUCT AND OIL LIMITED Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution principally lay a challenge to the constitutional validity of the increase in the rate of market. fee levied by the market committees in the State of Andhra Pradesh under sub-s. (1) of Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 ('Act' for short) from 50 paisa to rupee one on every one hundred rupees of the aggregate amount for which the notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock are purchased or sold in their respective notified market areas on the ground that there was no quid pro quo i.e. there was no correlation between the increase in the rate of market fee and the service rendered.

(2.) THERE are also certain subsidiary questions raised in these petitions viz.: (1) The constitutional validity of sub-section (6) of Section 7 of the Act which prohibits the carrying on of any transaction of purchase or sale of notified agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock in a notified market area or outside the market in that area as violative of Art. 19(l)(g) of the Constitution. (2) As to the power of the market committees to levy market fee under sub-s. (1) of Section 12 of the Act at rupee one per hundred rupees of the aggregate amount for which such agricultural produce, livestock or products of livestock are purchased or sold outside their markets but within their respective notified market areas and (3) Whether under R. 74(l) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Rules, 1969 ('Rules' for short) if purchase or sale of paddy has suffered market fee in the hands of a rice miller, whether subsequent purchase or sale of rice by a miller to a trader, or by a trader to a trader, can be subjected to payment of market fee again.

(3.) SOME of the petitioners challenged the increase in the rate of levy of market fee from 50 paisa to rupee one by filing petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. All these writ petitions were disposed of by the High Court by its judgment in Sri Vijaya Cotton Traders v. State of Andhra Pradesh by which it negatived many of the submissions advanced before us. Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the petitioners applied to this Court for grant of special leave under Art. 136. After hearing learned counsel appearing for them at considerable length, the Court dismissed the special leave petitions by its order dated 1/05/1981. Undaunted by the dismissal of the special leave petitions, these petitioners along with others have now filed petitions under Art. 32 of the Constitution and secured a rule nisi on the pretext that similar questions were involved in Civil Appeal No. 21M of 1972 and Writ Petition No. 1286 of 1973.