ADE BABU RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in all these writ petitions are aspirants for becoming commission agents in the market establishments under A. P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966. At the time when the writ petitions were filed, they had not applied or obtained licences to act as Commission agents. Had they applied, their applications would have been considered under Section 7 of the above Act. Sub-section (4) provides the circumstances under which an application may be rejected. It is the case of the petitioners that had they applied, their applications would not have been rejected by the market committee under Section 7(4) of the Act. But the Government issued G.O.Ms. No. 289 dt. 2-5-1989 to the following effect:

(2.) The State has filed counter-affidavit explaining the circumstances leading to the policy decision contained in G.O.Ms. No. 286 dt. 23-4-1989, its partial implementation in G.O.Ms. No. 287 dt. 29-4-1989 and the further manifestation of that policy by denying licences in future to act as commission agents in notified market yards as contained in the impugned order. The burden of the song is that the Government wanted to eliminate middlemen or commission agents in order that the growers or the producers of notified agricultural produce would get a better deal in selling the produce in the notified markets. There is, of course, a reference to wide spread malpractices committed by the commission agents which are mentioned apparently to justify the anxiety to eliminate the middlemen in the notified areas of the market committees between buyers and growers. Bereft of all the trappings as contained in the counter-affidavit, the case of the respondents is that the State was justified in its anxiety to eliminate middlemen or commission agents so as to benefit the growers or the producers.

(3.) Learned Advocate-General who appeared for the respondent/State submitted that an anxiety to eliminate middlemen was basic justification for the enactment of the A. P. (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 and that was only partially achieved by establishing notified markets and regulating the number of commission agents that could operate. In furtherance of the above policy, which was approved by the Supreme Court, the State is now trying, according to the Advocate-General in gradual stages to eliminate middlemen so that in the market areas the growers and producers can directly deal with the buyers resulting in additional benefits to the sellers. He submits that there is no question of violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India because the right of the applicants to conduct trade as commission agents generally is not denied by the impugned order. No question of expropriation arises in these cases. No denial of right to undertake or continue a profession is also involved. In respect of notified agricultural produce, the State is enlarging the scope of restrictions in such a manner as to benefit the agricultural producers and growers. In so far as the rights of the petitioners to engage in trade as commission agents in other articles are not impaired, submits the Advocate-General, there can be no question of any violation of any of the rights of the petitioners under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He submits, in the alternative, that assuming that these are restrictions which the State imposes on the right of the commission agents in respect of trade in agricultural produce or other notified produce, the State is entitled to impose such reasonable restrictions in public interest as are permissible under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, submits that in so far as the restrictions are not shown to be unreasonable, petitioners cannot have any case of violation of their rights under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.