VENKATESWARA VEGETABLE FRUITS CHILLIES GROWERS COLD STORAGE PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND MAGISTATE, GUNTUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts and the issue raised in all these cases are common and hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) The petitioners are doing business in cold storage for storing chillies in Guntur District. The petitioners provide the required atmosphere of cooling to the deposited stock so that the chillies do not get damaged. The farmers as well as the traders deposit their red chilli crop in the petitioners' cold storage for a period not less than one year and take back their stock as and when they get a reasonable price for their goods. At the time of deposit of the chilli stock, the farmers take bonds showing the quantity of chilli bags deposited by them with the petitioners. They hypothecate the said bonds and obtain loans from nationalized, non-nationalized banks and other financial institutions. Thus, it is the duty of the petitioners to take care of the goods deposited with them and to maintain the temperature for cooling the stocks deposited in the cold storage. They formed into an association by name 'Guntur District Cold Storage Owners' Welfare Association'. Every year before commencement of the crop year, the Executive Body of the Association passes resolution and fixes the cooling charges for every chilli bag of 45 kilograms weight to be charged from the depositors. The petitioners have necessary licenses from the concerned departments for running their business. During the relevant year 2008 the Association passed a resolution for collecting charges at the rate of Rs.90/- per bag for the entire year. On 14.02.2009, the Association passed a resolution for not collecting more than Rs.100/- for the year 2009. Since the rate fixed was a maximum rate, some of the petitioners were collecting less than the fixed rate also. Similarly some of the depositors were depositing bags weighing between 45 to 70 kilograms but the charged rate was uniform. While so, in the year 2008 the 1st respondent convened a meeting with the cold storage owners in his office and enquired with regard to the procedure that was adopted for charging the rates. Thereafter, on 07.11.2009 the 1st respondent convened a meeting of the owners of the cold storage. The season for the year 2009 ends by December 2009 and hence he enquired with regard to the charges collected for that season also but no minutes were recorded and no agreement was entered between the 1st respondent and members of the association. But the 1st respondent issued a show cause notice in RC.No.199/09/GR-II dated 07.12.2009 to all the cold storage owners stating that they have been collecting Rs.100/- per bag where as the charges fixed by the District Administration for the season up to 2009 was Rs.90/- only and the excess collection of Rs.10/- per bag was unwarranted and it resulted in collection of amount of Rs.6,00,000/- due to stock of 60,000 bags as on 01.05.2009 and if the amount was not paid he would see that the license issued by the concerned departments would be cancelled. A reply was sent by the petitioners and without considering the said reply nor giving any opportunity to the petitioners, the Joint Collector passed a final order on 08.05.2010 directing the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- each within 7 days failing which the amount would be recovered under the provisions of Revenue Recovery Act and the said notice was served on the petitioners on 11.05.2010. The 2nd respondent filed a counter on behalf of the respondents stating that a huge fire accident took place in Market Yard, Guntur on 03.05.2008 causing great financial loss to hundreds of farmers. The stock kept by the farmers in the market yard was completely damaged. Then the farmers were constrained to keep their stocks in cold storage units owned by private parties. Taking advantage of the situation, the petitioners started collecting exorbitant rates from the poor farmers. Under the said circumstances, the Joint Collector, Guntur convened a meeting with the representatives of the Cold Storage Owners Association and also some of the owners of the said units on 13.05.2008. During the course of meeting, the President of the Cold Storage Owners Association stated that only Rs.90/- per bag was collected for 10 months period and no excess amount was collected. They agreed to exhibit through flexi boards in front of every cold storage stating that storage charges were Rs.90/- per bag and complaints could be lodged if any cold storage demands excess charges over the above rate. The representatives accepted the said proposals and signed the minutes of the meeting. On 07.11.2009, another meeting was convened by the 1st respondent pursuant to the complaints received during the Adarsha Rythu Sadassu stating that the cold storage units were collecting charges more than Rs.90/- per bag. They were asked to explain the reasons for collection of charges for 10 months even though the farmers withdrew their produce in a short period. The 1st respondent was not convinced with the explanation of the representatives and concluded that excess collection of storage charges have to be recovered from the cold storages. The 1st respondent constituted a committee to discuss with the cold storage units with regard to collection of charges and complaints. Accordingly, on 09.11.2009 a meeting was conducted wherein the 1st respondent was given the authority to fix the rates for 2010 and 2011 seasons. Pursuant to the decision taken in the meeting held on 07.11.2009 and note orders dated 21.11.2009, the Joint Collector, Guntur issued show cause notices to all the concerned cold storage units and the petitioners submitted their explanation. After considering the explanation, the Joint Collector issued a final notice dated 08.05.2010 calling upon the petitioners to pay the excess amount of Rs.6,00,000/- collected from the farmers within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice and informed that the said amount would be recovered under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, if the same was not paid. It is denied that there were no resolutions or agreements or minutes recorded in the meeting and stated that the petitioners agreed to recover the excess amount collected, if any, by the members of the association. Since the farmers are subjected to exploitation by the petitioners, the action was taken and it is in accordance with law only.

(3.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.