MAMIDI SATYANARAYANA MURTY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Appeal comes before us on a reference made by our learned brothers, Sambasiva Rao and Sheth JJ. This writ appeal has been filed against the decision of Obul Reddi, J. (as he then was) in Writ Petition No. 4631 of 1972. The Writ petition was filed seeking directions against the State of Andhra Pradesh the Director of Marketing and the Agricultural Marketing Committee, Anakapalle, to desist from enforcing the bye-laws and R. 73 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Market Rules, 1969 and the executive order of the Government in its memorandum No. 2733/Agriculture/IV/71/1 dated 26-8-1971 on the ground that the bye-laws and R. 73 are ultra virus and without jurisdiction.

(2.) The main dispute between the parties is regarding the interpretation of some of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Live Stock) Markets Act (16 of 1966), (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By this Act two earlier Acts, which were in force in different regions of the State of Andhra Pradesh were repealed. These two Acts were the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Commercial Crops Act. 1933 and the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Agricultural Market Act, 1339-F. It may be pointed out that the Act of 1933, which was repealed was originally enacted in the State of Madras as Madras Commercial Crops Markets Act, 1933. The appellants before us are the original petitioners carrying on business in the notified commodities in and around Yellamanchili in Visakhapatnam District. Under the Act of 1933, the entire Visakapatnam district was constituted as a single notified area. It may be pointed out that, under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Commercial Crops Act. 1933 as well as under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Agricultural Market Act, 1339-F, referred to above, there were only two concepts viz. the concept of notified area and the concept of markets or market yards. There was no concept of market area or notified market area in those two Acts, which were repealed by the Act of 1966 with which we are concerned in the instant case. Under the notification issued by the Government under Section 3(3) of the Act of 1966, the Visakapatnam District is divided into three notified areas viz. Anakapalle Visakhapatnam and Kothavalasa. After issuing that notification under Section 3(3), the State Government in exercise of its powers under Section 4(1), constituted market Committees for the three notified area. This was the major second step which the Government was required to take in putting the machinery set up under the Act of 1966 into full operation. As a third step in this process contemplated by the Act, the Anakapalle Market Committee constituted a market for Anakapalle and that was done by the market Committee in exercise of the powers conferred upon it under Section 4(3) of the Act. The notification regarding the notified area for the three units was issued on 29-10-1968 and the notification regarding the setting up of the three market Committees was issued on 4/04/1969. By the notification under Section 3(3) of the Act, the notified area for Anakapalle was to cover Anakapalle, Yellamanchili, Chodavaram, Narasipatnam and Chintapalle taluks. The Government directed the market Committee for Anakapalle notified area to establish markets at five places within the notified area of Anakapalli. The five markets to be thus established were Anakapalli, Chodavaram, Vaddadi, Makavarapalem, and Yellamanchili. After establishing the market at Anakapalli, the entire area within the limits of Anakapalli Municipality was notified by the market Committee to be the market area and the Anakapalli market was to comprise of Gandhi Market. Raja Rammohan Roy Vegetable Market, Jubili Hall site fish and meat market and Sunday weekly shandy market. Thereafter, in exercise of its powers under Sub-section (4) of Section 4 of the Act, the State Government notified what is referred to as notified market area for the market at Anakapalli town and this notified market area was described as follows:

(3.) The writ petition was heard by Obul Reddi, J. (as he then was) sitting as a Single Judge. He came to the conclusion that, by virtue of the saving clause in the repealing and saving Section 36 and particularly in view of Section 36 proviso (aa) of the Act, the power of the Market Committee to levy market fees on the transactions of the petitioners in the notified commodities was not affected by the fact that Yellamanchilli was beyond the radius of 20 K. Ms. from the office of the office of the Agricultural Market Committee, Anakapalli. In coming to this conclusion, Obul Reddi J. (as he then was) relied upon the decision in Writ Appeal No. 131 of 1971 and batch decided by a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Narasimham C. J. and Kuppuswamy J. on 14/07/1971. According to that decision of the Division Bench the fact that under the present Act of 1966, no notification is issued under Section 4(4) setting up a notified market area does not deprive the Market Committee of its power under Section 12 to levy market fees. The reasoning of Obul Reddi, J. (as he then was) proceeded on the footing that, prior to the constitution of the notified area for Anakapalli the entire district of Visakpatnam was a notified area and, therefore, by virtue of the provisions of the Act of 1933 saved by Section 36 (aa) of the Act of 1966, the Market Committee was entitled to act under Section 12 of the Act of 1966 and levy market fees.