BETHALA SUBBA RAO Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. 4th Respondent is the Agricultural Market Commitee, Tenali constituted in 1974 for a term of three years. The period of three years expired on 31st December, 1977. The Director of Marketing submitted panels of growers and others to the Government on 4th October, 1977, for constituting the Committee. At that stage, some of the growers filed writ petition W.P. Xo. 4165 of 1977 in this Court and obtained orders of stay against the conduct of election of grower-members. In view of the stay orders, the Committee could not be reconstituted before 31st December, 1977. The- Government, therefore, by an order in G.O. Rt. No. 2115 dated 24th December, 1977. in exercise of the powers conferred by section 6 (2) of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and the proviso thereto, extended the term of the Committee for a period of six months from 1st January, 1978 to 30th June, 1978 or till the Committee is reconstituted, whichever is earlier. The term of the Committee was again extended in G.O. Rt. Xo. 1218, dated 13th July. 1978 from 1st July. 1978 to 22nd August, 1978. Again it was extended under G.O.Rt. Xo 1611, dated 29th September, 1978 from 23rd August, 1978 to 31st December, 1978. As the Committee could not be reconstituted due to certain administrative difficulties, before 31st December, 1978, the Government, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 35, exempted the Market Committee from the operation of so much of sub-section (2) of section 6 of the Act as relates to the period specified therein and further extended the term of the Market Committee for a further period of three months from 1st January, 1979 to 31st March, 1979 or till the Committee is reconstituted, whichever is earlier, under G.O. Rt. No. 63, dated 12th January, 1979. Again the term was extended by another two months from 1st April, 1979 to 31st May, 1979 under G. O.Rt. No. 1024, dated 9th April, 1979 by exempting the Committee from the operation of section 6 (2) of the Act. By another G. O.Rt. No. 1384, dated 30th May, 1979, the Government again exempted the Committee from the operation of the provisions of section 6 (2) and the extended the term by another three months from 1st June, 1979 to 31st August, 1979. This order was challenged by one Thevaram Israil. He contended in the Writ Petition: (1) that under section 6 (2), the Government could not extend the term of the Committee for more than one year; (2) that the Government did not specify the reasons in the notification according exemption under section 35 ; and (3) that the impugned notification exempted the Committee from the operation of section 6 (3) and not section 6 (2), and, therefore, the extension of the term of the Committee is bad. The learned single Judge held on point No. (2), that the notification sets out the reasons for granting exemption under section 35, and, therefore, the notification is valid. With regard to points (1) and (3), the learned Judge held that the exemption under section 35 was from the operation of section 6 (3) (a) and not section 6 (2), and, therefore, the Government could not have validly extended the term of the Committee beyond the period of one year and by holding so, he rejected the contention of the 3rd respondent (Market Committee), that the Government intended to exempt the Committee from the operation of section 6 (2) and by mistake it was mentioned as section 6 (3) (a) in the notification and allowed the writ petition.

(2.) Aggrieved with the decision of the learned single Judge, the Market Committee preferred writ appeal W.A. No. 266 of 1979. The Division Bench consisting of Ramachandra Rao and P.A. Chowdary, JJ, held, that the Government intended to extend the term of the Market Committee for a further period of three months from 1st June, 1979 by exempting the Committee from the operation of section 6 (2) and the reference to section 6 (3) (a) in the notification appears to be wholly inappropriate and an apparent clerical error had crept in at the time of drafting of the impugned notification as well as in the earlier notification in G.O.Rt. No. 1024 and if the notification is read by inserting section 6 (2) in the place of section 6 (3) (a), the extension of the term of the Committee by the impugned G.O., is proper and valid and is not liable to be struck down as being contrary to section 6 (2) and so holding, the learned Judges allowed the writ appeal and set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge in the writ petition W.P. No. 4424 of 1979.

(3.) After the disposal of the writ petition, the above cited writ appeal was filed. During the pendency of the writ appeal, the period of three months provided for by the G.O.Rt. No. 1384, dated 30th May, 1979 expired. The judgment in the writ appeal was pronounced on 30th August, 1979. The Government, therefore, felt it necessary to extend the term of the Committee to a further period of four months from 1st September, 1979 to 31st December, 1979, and hence, the impugned G. O., viz., G.O.Rt. No. 1943, dated 5th August, 1979 was issued exempting the Committee under section 35 from the operation of section 6 (2) and extended the term by foul months from 1st September, 1979 to 31st December, 1979.